development and validation of a questionnaire to … · studia psychologica, 53, 2011, 3 235...

STUDIA PSYCHOLOGICA, 53, 2011, 3 235

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A QUESTIONNAIRETO ASSESS ANALOGY AND CREATIVITY IN

OPEN PROBLEM-SOLVING

Maria Luisa SANZ DE ACEDO LIZARRAGA¹,Maria Teresa SANZ DE ACEDO BAQUEDANO¹, Antonio HUMBERTO CLOSAS²

1Departamento de Psicología and PedagogíaCampus de Arrosadía, Universidad Pública de Navarra

31006 Pamplona, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

2National University of North-East, Argentina

Abstract: The chief aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to analyze theanalogical and creative processes used by individuals when solving open problems. The investiga-tion was carried out with a sample of 349 participants, ages 14 to 15 years, 147 boys and 202 girls,from both public and subsidized schools of the Community of Navarre (Spain). The procedureemployed was a four-phase sequence: elaboration of the items of the questionnaire, administra-tion of the analogical reasoning and creativity tests, training in the analogical procedure andcreativity components, and solution of an open problem, responding individually to the question-naire. Psychometric analyses revealed that the seven-item Analogical and Creative Questionnaire(ACQ) has satisfactory internal consistency, a clear factor structure, and acceptable convergentand content validity.

Key words: analogy, creativity, fluidity, flexibility, originality

Knowledge of analogy and creativity inopen problem-solving, that is, understand-ing that the use of these processes facili-tates problem-solving, is extremely relevant,especially for the education of adolescents.In effect, most researchers agree that, dur-ing adolescence, analogical reasoningshould already have developed, creativityshould be thriving, and open problems aremore frequently encountered (Lipman, 2003;Smolycha, Smolycha, 1985; Torrance, 1988).

According to Holyoak (2005), “two situa-tions are analogous if they share a commonpattern of relationships among their constitu-ent elements, even though the elementsthemselves differ across the two situations.

Typically, one analog, termed the source orbase, is more familiar or better understoodthan the second analog, termed the target”(p. 117). This asymmetry in the initial knowl-edge provides the basis for analogical trans-fer, using the source to generate new infer-ences about the target. Analogies are a wayof making the unfamiliar known.

Creativity, which is multidimensional, isconsidered a process of seeking, combining,and assessing information (Lubart, 2001;Mumford et al., 1991; Weisber, Hass, 2007)that produces something new and useful(Sternberg, Lubart, 1995). Creativity is bynature modifiable; people can learn to de-velop the three main characteristics that de-

236 STUDIA PSYCHOLOGICA, 53, 2011, 3

termine its flexibility (producing many ideas),fluidity (with various characteristics), andoriginality (new ideas) (Sanz de AcedoLizarraga et al., 2009).

In order to shed light on the relationshipbetween analogical reasoning and creativ-ity, the last few decades have witnessed anintense study of the ways in which induc-tive reasoning is related to creativity(Cubuckcu, Dundar, 2007; Nickerson, 1999).According to Cubuckcu and Dundar (20007),analogical reasoning appears to be a power-ful tool for enhancing peoples’ creative think-ing ability. The influence of this reasoningon creativity can be positive or negative(Goldschmidt, Smolkov, 2006). Affirmativeeffects would emerge when one uses appro-priate past solutions to understand and gen-erate ideas for an existing problem. Negativeeffects would emerge when one uses unsuc-cessful or inappropriate past solutions. Inthe same line, Amabile (1988) posited thatcreativity occurs at the intersection of gen-eral domain knowledge and creativity skills.She stated that domain expertise provides aset of relevant “pathways” for an individualto explore during the full engagement of cre-ativity skills (Tierney, Farmer, 2002). The in-formation provided by the aforementionedauthors suggests that previous examples, asit happens in the analogical reasoning, canbe used to trigger creative idea generationto solve opened problems.

The theories attempting to explain anal-ogy propose a series of steps that the indi-vidual should follow when solving a prob-lem creatively (Holyoak, 2005).

First, describe the nature of the problem-situation. This usually requires convergentthinking operations, such as encoding,analysis, synthesis, and reorganization ofthe information (Arlin, 1990; Redmond,

Mumford, Teach, 1993). The definition high-lights the critical feature of the solution tothe problem.

Second, retrieve analogues from long-termmemory and generate ideas. This involvesactivation both of convergent and divergentthinking, because retrieval entails the opera-tions of identifying traits, representing themmentally, selecting the most relevant, creat-ing new comparisons, and combining themwith one or more (familiar or original) ana-logues (Bearman, Ball, Ormerod, 2007;Gentner, Gentner, 1983).

Third, it is important to establish a sys-tematic group of correspondences - “map-ping” - between principles, formulas, proce-dures, and attributes of the two domains(source and target). Some researchers con-sider such correspondences to be the heartof analogical reasoning and creativity(Bearman et al., 2007; Glynn et al., 1989;Holyoak, Thagard, 1995). The parallelism ofthe elements is a matter of degree; it is a con-tinuum that can range from complete isomor-phism between the two pertinent problemstates to partial relations, which sometimeslead to a creative solution.

Fourth, suggest one or several potentiallysound analogues to solve the target prob-lem by a process of rigorous assessment ofthe correspondences between the sourceand target and between the new ideas gen-erated and the situation to be solved (Gentner,1989; Gick, Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Glynn et al.,1989; Mumford, Baughman, Sager, 2003;Mumford et al., 1991; Runco, 2006; Ward,2001; Ward, Wickes, 2009).

Fifth, choose one of the best solution al-ternatives, some based on previous knowl-edge - such as analogy - and others on cre-ation and invention, but always taking thecontext into account (Baughman, Mumford,


1995; Perkins, 1990; Sternberg, Lubart, 1991,1995; Torrance, 1988, 1990). Using analogyand creativity are good strategies to solveproblems (Cubukcu, Cetintahra, 2010;Cubukcu, Dundar, 2007).

Finally, the last step in the analogical andcreative procedure, especially for those in-dividuals who focus on problem-solving byprojecting creativity, is exploration, obser-vation, and identification of possible inher-ent difficulties when putting any solutionstrategy into practice. In fact, as most au-thors will acknowledge, the ability to findnew obstacles is a characteristic of creativepeople, because discovering the difficultiesof a problem will help them understand itbetter (Chand, Runco, 1992; Getzels, 1987;Sternberg, Lubart, 1991; Wakefield, 1988;Ward, 2001).

All these steps reveal the role that anal-ogy plays in problem-solving, especially inthose cases that require creative processes.

But, how can we measure the analogicaland creative processes involved in the abovestep sequence? Some instruments assessanalogical reasoning (Bennet, Seashore,Wesman, 1973) and others creativity (Tor-rance, 1974), but there is no instrument thatsimultaneously assesses both processesduring problem solving; that is, an instru-ment that provides information aboutwhether the subjects have used an analogi-cal or a creative procedure when solving anopen problem.

Therefore, the purpose of this investiga-tion was to develop and validate a mea-surement instrument to assess the analogi-cal and creative processes used to solve aclassical problem in psychology, the “LightBulb Problem” (Holyoak, Koh, 1987), fol-lowing the steps described in the previousparagraphs.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 349 students from thirdgrade of Compulsory Secondary Education(CSE) from eight public centers, 147 boysand 202 girls (mean age = 14.82 years, stan-dard deviation = 0.49). These participantsrepresented the universe of third-grade ado-lescent CSE students in the city ofPamplona, Community of Navarre (Spain).The educational centers were randomly se-lected from the total of centers in the city.We used the established configuration ofthe groups of students in the centers tocarry out the intervention. According to theteachers’ reports, the students’ general aca-demic level was low, and the parents’ eco-nomical level was estimated to be medium-low, on the basis of the location of the edu-cational centers and other data about thefamilies, although this variable was notquantified. The centers were not meant forstudents with special needs, giftedness, orin need of remediation.

Materials

1) Verbal Reasoning Test. The Verbal Rea-soning (VR) Test, from the Differential Apti-tude Test (DAT; Bennett et al., 1973) wasadministered to measure this cognitive abil-ity. This instrument contains 50 verbal analo-gies. In each sentence, the first and lastwords are missing. Participants must com-plete the sentence by choosing a pair ofwords from five pairs presented, so that thesentence makes sense and is true. The testhas adequate validity and a reliability indexof α = .82 (Spearman-Brown formula).


2) Verbal Expression Test, Form A. TheVerbal Expression Test, Form A, from theTorrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT;Torrance, 1974), assesses three dimensionsof creative thinking: fluidity, flexibility, andoriginality. It is made up of seven games, thefirst three based on the same drawing. Thefirst game consists of elaborating questionsabout what is occurring in the drawing. Inthe second and third games, participantsmust make up as many explanations as pos-sible about what they think had happenedbefore the scene or what might happen inthe near future. The fourth game, with a newdrawing, consists of presenting all the pos-sible ingenious transformations to make thedrawing more attractive. Cardboard boxes areemployed in the fifth and sixth games: Par-ticipants should think about their possibleuses and try to elaborate questions aboutthem. The last game presents an implausibledrawing and participants are asked to writethe ideas suggested by the following expres-sion: “imagine there are strings tied to theclouds and they hang down to the ground.”The test provides three partial scores - fluid-ity, flexibility, and originality - and a total scoreof the creativity displayed by the personwhen performing the tasks. According to themanual, the reliability indexes of the TTCT-Form A range between α = .80 and α = .97 forthe total scores, and α = .86, α = .76, and α =.80 for fluidity, flexibility, and originality, re-spectively.

3) Analogical and Creative Questionnaire(ACQ). This instrument assesses the use ofanalogical and creative processes when solv-ing open problems. The instrument is basedon a definition of open problem as one wherethe means of solving it are not immediatelyapparent, either because relevant actionsthat can be taken to change the state of the

problem or a clear description of the goal arenot explicitly stated (Robertson, 2001). Itcomprises seven questions that follow a gen-eral pattern of open problem solving (Annex1). The questionnaire is mainly based on thetheories of Glynn et al. (1989) and of Kleinand Weitzenfeld (1978), who state that bothanalogical and creative processes can inter-vene in problem solving. In order to answerthe questions, participants must have acti-vated relations of various orders in theirminds, restructured the problem, retrievedthe analogy, extrapolated secondary andprincipal characteristics, proposed new andoriginal solutions, foreseen difficulties, andassessed their achievements. The sevenitems measure analogy and creativity, exceptfor Items 1 and 7, which only measure anal-ogy and creativity, respectively.

The participants’ responses were evalu-ated by two experts familiar with the generalanalogy and creativity literature who worked,initially, independently following the proce-dure suggested by Holyoak (2005) for theanalogy and the criteria proposed by Tor-rance 1974 for creative skills (fluidity, flex-ibility and originality). Each question wasassessed using a scale of 0, 1 and 2 pointsand agreed on by the experts. The minimumagreement rate for a response to be consid-ered valid was 90%, and in the cases in whichthey disagreed, they reviewed the responseuntil reaching an agreement. Scoring exhaus-tive information norms and interpretation ofthe results of the analogical and creativeitems are presented in Annexes 2 and 3.

4) Problems used in the study. We usedthree problems, called respectively, the Ra-diation Problem, the General’s Problem, andthe Light Bulb Problem. The first two wereused in the training phase of analogical andcreative processes, and the third in the phase


of responding to the items of the ACQ (An-nex 4).

Procedure

The procedure employed in this investi-gation was carried out in four phases duringthe regular class schedule and with the cus-tomary groups from the educational centers.

The initial phase consisted of elaborationof the seven questions of the questionnaire,following the indications of outstanding re-searchers of analogy (Holyoak, Thagard,1995) and creativity (Mumford et al., 1991);analysis by experts of the suitability of eachquestion to the processes of analogy and ofthe components of creativity - fluidity, flex-ibility, and originality - to be assessed; andfinal drafting of the questionnaire items.

In the second phase, the students wereinformed that they would participate in aninvestigation in which they would have tocarry out tasks that were very different fromthe ones they usually performed in class andthat these tasks would be carried out in threework sessions. After that, we administeredthe Verbal Reasoning Test (DAT-VR; Bennettet al., 1973), and the Torrance Test of Cre-ative Thinking (TTCT Form A; Torrance,1974).

Three days later, two open problems - en-titled the Radiation Problem and the General’sProblem, used by Gick and Holyoak (1980) -were analyzed and solved conjointly by theinvestigator and the students with the aimof training them in the analogical procedureand in the components of creativity. TheRadiation Problem was used in order to un-derstand the process of reasoning by anal-ogy: reading the problem out loud, comment-ing on its characteristics, examining avail-able resources, studying the possible alter-

natives to solve the problem, and selectingthe most appropriate one. The General’sProblem was used to understand the creativ-ity components: reading the problem outloud, commenting on its characteristics, gen-erating new and original alternatives to solvethe problem, and selecting the most appro-priate one.

In the fourth phase, the students solvedthe Light Bulb Problem, responding to theseven items of the Analogical and CreativeQuestionnaire.

RESULTS

The results of the study of the psycho-metric characteristics of the questionnaire -reliability and validity (content, convergence,and construct validity) - are presented be-low, both for the analogical and the creativedata.

Cronbach’s internal consistency alpha wasused to calculate the reliability of the ana-logical items (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), the creativeitems (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), and of the totalquestionnaire, with reliability indexes of r =.68, r = .84, and r = .73, respectively. Takinginto account the small number of items thatassess the variables, these indexes are ac-ceptable, which indicates that the items ac-curately measure the analogical and creativeprocesses supposedly assessed by theACQ. We also calculated the alpha indexesof the components of creativity, obtainingthe following values: α = .79 for fluidity, α =.52 for flexibility, α = .78 for originality, andα = .76 for total creativity. These results pro-vide positive support for the precision of thequestionnaire regarding the items that mea-sure creativity.

Content validity was based on item analy-sis by experts in the field of analogy and


creativity, who were asked to examine eachitem to indicate possible difficulties in its in-terpretation, and suggest any suitable im-provements. The specialists only proposedchanging small linguistic details such as thewording of a few items.

Convergent validity was assessed by cor-relating the ACQ scores in the analogicalquestions with scores in the DAT-VR, andthe creative items with scores in the TTCT-Form A (see Table 1). The correlations be-tween the analogical items of the ACQ andthe DAT-VR were all low and statistically sig-nificant (between r = .12 and r = .25), and thecorrelations between the creative questionsof the ACQ with the TTCT-Form A were highand statistically significant (between r = .29and r = .57).

Also, the correlations between the analogi-cal items of the ACQ and the TTCT-Form Awere calculated, as well as the correlationsbetween the creative items of the ACQ andthe DAT-VR, and the correlations betweenthe creative components of the ACQ and thecreative components of the TTCT-Form A.The first correlations were, in general, low,some were positive and others negative; thesecond correlations were low, although sta-tistically significant. These results reveal thatanalogy and creativity share some cognitiveprocess (see Table 1). The third correlationswere fairly high, except for the component offlexibility, which has a low correlation withthe other components (see Table 2).

To contrast empirically the construct va-lidity of the ACQ, we performed a Confir-

Table 1. Correlations among the Analogical Items of the ACQ and the DAT-VR, theCreative Items and the TTCT-Form A, the Analogical Items and the TTCT-Form A, and theCreative Items and the DAT-VR

Table 2. Correlations between the Creative Components of the ACQ and the CreativeComponents of the TTCT-Form A

Variables Analogical and Creative Items of the ACQ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A¹ A¹/C² A¹/C² A¹/C² A¹/C² A¹/C² C²

DAT-VR .25** .12* .15* .18** .14** .15** TTCT-Form A .49** .56** .57** .31** .30** .29** TTCT-Form A .20** .10 -.16** -.12* -.17* .09 DAT-VR .27* .37** .34** .18** .19** .16** * p < .05; ** p < .01 A¹ = Analogy; C² = Creativity

ACQ TTCT- Form A Fluidity Flexibility Originality Total Creativity Fluidity .59** .42** .61** .62** Flexibility .25* .25* .26* .27* Originality .61** .57** .64** .65** Total Creativity .57** .47** .58** .60** * p < .05; ** p < .01


matory Factor Analysis (CFA) using theEQS structural equations program (Bentler,2006). In the estimation procedure, we usedthe robust method of maximum likelihood(in order to correct the lack of normality ofthe data) as the normalized estimation ofMardia’s coefficient (which indicates multi-variate kurtosis), was 13.43, higher than thecriterion of 5 points recommended byBentler (2006).

Certain effects among manifest (P1A toP7C) and latent variables (analogy and cre-ativity) were arbitrarily fixed at one, and thevariances of the independent variables (anal-ogy and creativity) and of the specific fac-tors (EP1A to EP7C) were left free. We also esti-mated the covariances among the indepen-dent variables and the errors of some ob-served variables (EP2A - EP2C, EP3A - EP3C, EP4A- EP4C, EP5A - EP5C, and EP6A - EP6C), and weconsidered the covariances not specified inFigure 1 null.

Assessment was performed with two ana-lytic procedures. One was used in order toexamine the relations among the variables(items and dimensions of the ACQ) postu-lated in the model, and the other was usedto determine whether the hypothesizedmodel correctly reproduced the data, that is,whether it globally matched the relations inthe correlation matrix of the empirical data.

From an analytical viewpoint, the resultsindicated that the estimated factor loadingswere, in general, statistically significant andpositive (between .14 to .98, p < .05). In con-trast, the covariances obtained were some-times significant and negative, and some-times nonsignificant (α = .05).

Within the context of the structural analy-sis, we could verify that the ACQ structureis made up of two factors - analogy and cre-ativity - which correlate significantly and

negatively (r = -.24*); the same tendency ofthe correlation was observed in the errorterms EP5A-EP5C and EP6A-EP6C,, whereas theterms EP2A-EP2C, EP3A-EP3C, and EP4A-EP4C didnot correlate; that is, they were independent.The two factors represent the dimensions ofthe questionnaire analyzed. In other words,practically all the regression coefficients ofthe variables P1A, P2A, P3A, P4A, P5A,P6A, and the analogy factor, as well as thoseof the P2C, P3C, P4C, P5C, P6C, P7C, and thecreativity factor were statistically significant(p < .05).

The above-mentioned standardized solu-tions of the bifactorial model are displayedin Figure 1.

In order to judge the fit of the model to theempirical data, we employed a strategy basedon the following indicators: a) ² and 2/df,where the former should be nonsignificantand the latter should have a value lower than2 (Hu, Bentler, 1999); b) the comparative fitindex (CFI) and the non-normed fit index(NNFI), which should be higher than .90;c) the root mean square error of approxima-tion (RMSEA), which should be lower than.05 (Bentler, 2006).

The chi-square test was statistically sig-nificant, 2(36) = 55.18, p = .02, which, in prin-ciple, led to considering the model inad-equate (if α = .05), however, this value di-vided by the degrees of freedom revealed anadequate fit of the model (2/df = 1.53). Thenormed fit indexes NFI and NNFI had valuesof .99 and .98, respectively, and the value ofthe error index RMSEA was .04. In all cases,the results suggest a good fit of the model tothe data.

Summing up, by means the diverse indica-tors employed, we confirmed that the ob-served variance-covariance matrix and theone predicted by the model, specified accord-


Analogy

Creativity

P4C

P5C

P6C

P3C

P2C

P7C

EP2C

EP4C

EP5C

EP3C

EP6C

EP7C

.10 (ns)

P3A

P4A

P5A

P2A

P1A

P6A

EP1A

EP3A

EP4A

EP2A

EP5A

EP6A

.14 (f)

.37*

.98*

.89*

.08 (ns)

.28*

.68 (f)

.92*

.89*

.42*

.27*

.38*

-

.23 (ns)

-.09 (ns)

-.55*

-.36*

Note. ns = nonsignificant effect; f = fixed effect* p < .05

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor model of the Analogical and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ)with standardized results


ing to the theoretical relations we assumed,are not significantly different. In other words,the model selected fits the empirical modeland, as a result, is optimum to explain thedata obtained.

DISCUSSION

We now wish to determine whether theAnalogical and Creative Questionnaire elabo-rated is useful to assess the processes ofanalogy and creativity when solving an openproblem. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients aresufficiently high, both in the analogical andin the creative items, indicating that the ACQmeasures with some precision the two di-mensions it was designed to measure. Inother words, an important part of the vari-ance of the test is due to the true measure,not to causal errors, thereby guaranteeingits suitability for research.

Content validity is ensured by the posi-tive evaluation of the items by the expertsand by numerous empirical works on the pro-cesses involved in problem-solving withanalogical procedures (Gentner, 1989; Gick,Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Glynn et al., 1989;Goldschmidt, Smolkov, 2006; Holyoak, Koh,1987; Keane, 1988) and creativity (Baughman,Mumford, 1995; Cubuckcu, Dundar, 2007;Mobley, Doares, Mumford, 1992; Mumfordet al., 1991; Perkins, 1990; Torrance, 1988,1990). Therefore, the content of each item isadapted to the dimension it is meant to as-sess, which is as follows: a) describing ofthe problem; b) retrieving of analogies fromlong-term memory and generation of many,varied, new ideas; c) identifying the princi-pal and secondary similarities between thesource analogy and the target problem andbetween the new ideas and the target prob-lem; d) suggesting solutions of problem,

f) choosing the best solution, and g) fore-seeing difficulties if the proposed solutionswere carried out. Most authors consider allthese operations are essential in order tosolve a problem using analogies and creativ-ity.

Convergent validity is more limited in theanalogical processes than in the creative pro-cesses. Effectively, the correlations of theanalogical items with the DAT-VR were gen-erally low, although statistically significant.This is understandable if one takes into ac-count that the DAT-VR follows a classic ana-logical model and that the items of ACQ areformulated with a broader orientation. On theother hand, the correlations of the creativeitems of the ACQ with the TTCT-Form A weresignificant and moderately high.

The study carried out with confirmatoryfactor analysis allowed us to verify the con-struct validity of the ACQ. Firstly, the rela-tive factor loadings in the variables observed- P1A to P6A and P2C to P7C - that corre-spond to the common factors (analogy andcreativity) are, in general, statistically sig-nificant, and secondly, the results show thatthe proposed model presents an adequateglobal fit to the data.

We could therefore state that the Analogi-cal and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ) pro-vides information about problem-solvingprocesses that use analogy and creativity.The fact that Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 assessboth processes simultaneously can be ex-plained, as stated by Mobley et al. (1992),because the processes related to the searchfor analogies and their extrapolation contrib-ute to the production of novel, original, andhigh-quality ideas, and these key cognitiveoperations trigger the generation of creativeideas. Finke, Ward, and Smith (1992),Holyoak and Thagard (1995), and Ward,


Finke, and Smith (1995) also defend this in-terpretation.

The ACQ could be used for the followingpurposes: a) to define and solve problemsthat require the activation of analogical andcreative processes; b) to elaborate materialsin which analogical and creative processescould be exercised; c) to underline the stepsthat should be followed when practicing anal-ogy: representation and definition of theproblem, seeking the analog, considering andtransferring the characteristics; d) to stimu-late and measure the key components of cre-ativity: fluidity, flexibility, and originality;e) to obtain a global score of creativity inproblem solving; f) to understand curricularconcepts, as the ACQ questions help to es-tablish relations between prior knowledgeand the new information to be acquired.

Concluding, the ACQ could be a reliableand valid instrument to assess the analogi-cal and creative processes that are observedwhen solving problems. However, it wouldbe appropriate to analyze new data in orderto complete its psychometric properties, todetermine the behavior of the items with an-other kind of problems, perhaps closer to reallife than the one used in the current study,and to reaffirm the validity of the assess-ment criteria of each question.

Received September 13, 2010

REFERENCES

AMABILE, T.M., 1988, A model of creativityand innovation in organizations. In: B.M. Staw, L.L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational be-havior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenvich, CT: JAIPress.

ARLIN, P.K., 1990, Wisdom: The art of prob-lem finding. In: R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Itsnature, origins, and development (pp. 230-243).New York: Cambridge University Press.

BAUGHMAN, W.A., MUMFORD, M.D., 1995,Process-analytic models of creative capacities:Operations influencing the combination and reor-ganization processes. Creativity Research Journal,8, 1, 37-62.

BEARMAN, C.R., BALL, L.J., ORMORED, T.C.,2007, The structure and function of spontaneousanalogising in domain-based problem solving. Think-ing & Reasoning, 13, 3, 273-294.

BENNET, G.K., SEASHORE, H.G., WESMAN,A.G., 1973, Differential Aptitude Tests. New York:The Psychological Corporation. [Spanish transla-tion: Tests de Aptitudes Diferenciales. Madrid: TEA,1992].

BENTLER, P.M., 2006, EQS Structural equa-tions program manual. Encino, CA: MultivariateSoftware.

CHAND, I., RUNCO, M.A., 1992, Problem find-ing skills as components in the creative process.Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 1, 155-162.

CUBUKCU, E., CETINTAHRA, G.E., 2010,Does analogical reasoning with visual clues affectnovice and experienced design student’ creativity?Creativity Research Journal, 22, 3, 337-344.

CUBUKCU, E., DUNDAR, S., 2007, Can cre-ativity be taught? An empirical study on ben-efits of visual analogy in basic design education.A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 4,2, 67-80.

FINKE, R.A., WARD, T.B., SMITH, S.M., 1992,Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applica-tions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

GENTNER, D., 1989, The mechanisms of ana-logical learning. In: S. Vosniadou, A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

GENTNER, D., GENTNER, D.R., 1983, Flow-ing waters of teeming crowds: Mental models ofelectricity. In: D. Gentner, A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Men-tal models (pp. 99-129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GETZELS, J.W., 1987, Problem finding and cre-ative achievement. Gifted Students Institute Quar-terly, 12, 4, B1-B4.

GICK, M.L., HOLYOAK, K.J., 1980, Analogicalproblem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 3, 306-355.

GICK, M.L., HOLYOAK, K.J., 1983, Schemainduction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psy-chology, 15, 1, 1-38.

GLYNN, S.M., BRITTON, B.K., SEMRUND-CLIKEMAN, M., MUTH, K.D., 1989, Analogical


reasoning and problem-solving in science textbooks.In: J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, C.R. Reynolds (Eds.),Handbook of creativity: Assessment, research andtheory (pp. 383-898). New York: Plenum Press.

GOLDSCHMIDT, G., SMOLKOW, M., 2006,Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on designproblem-solving performance. Design Studies, 27,5, 549-569.

HOLYOAK, K.J., 2005, Analogy. In: K.J.Holyoak, R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridgehandbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117-142).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

HOLYOAK, K.J., KOH, K., 1987, Surface andstructural similarity in analogical transfer. Memoryand Cognition, 15, 4, 332-340.

HOLYOAK, K.J., 2005, Analogy. In: K.J.Holyoak, R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridgehandbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117-142).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

HOLYOAK, K.J., THAGARD, P.R., 1995, Men-tal leaps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

KEANE, M.T.G., 1988, Analogical mechanisms.Artificial Intelligence Review, 2, 4, 229-250.

KLEIN, G.A., WEITZENFELD, J., 1978, Im-provement of skills for solving ill-defined prob-lems. Educational Psychologist, 13, 1, 31-41.

LIPMAN, M., 2003, Thinking in education (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.LUBART, T.I., 2001, Models of the creative pro-

cess: Past, present, and future. Creativity ResearchJournal, 13, 3-4, 295-308.

MOBLEY, M.I., DOARES, L.M., MUMFORD,M.D., 1992, Process analytic model of creativecapacities: Evidence for the combination and reor-ganization process. Creativity Research Journal, 5,2, 125-155.

MUMFORD, M.D., MOBLEY, M.I., UHLMAN,C.E., REITER-PALMON, R., DOARES, L., 1991,Process analytic models of creative thought. Cre-ativity Research Journal, 4, 2, 91-122.

MUMFORD, M.D., BAUGHMAN, W.A., SAGER,CH.E., 2003, Picking the right material: Cognitiveprocessing skills and their role in creative thought.In: M.A. Runco (Ed.), Critical creative processes(pp. 19-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

NICKERSON, R.S., 1999, Enhancing creativity.In: R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.392-430). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

PERKINS, D.N., 1990, The nature and nurtureof creativity. In: B.F. Jones, L. Idol (Eds.), Dimen-sions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 415-443). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

REDMOND, M.R., MUMFORD, M.D., TEACH,R.J., 1993, Putting creativity to work: Leader in-fluences on subordinate creativity. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 1,120-151.

ROBERTSON, S.I., 2001, Problem solving .Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

RUNCO, M.A., 2006, Creativity: Theories andthemes, research, development and practice.Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

SANZ DE ACEDO LIZARRAGA, M.L., SANZDE ACEDO BAQUEDANO, M.T., GOICOAMANGADO, T., CARDELLE-ELAWAR, M., 2009,Enhancement of thinking skills: Effects of two in-tervention methods. Thinking Skills and Creativity,4, 1, 30-43.

SMOLYCHA, L., SMOLYCHA, F., 1985, A fifthPiagetian stage: The collaboration between ana-logical and logical thinking in artistic creativity.Visual Arts Research, 10, 1, 90-99.

STERNBERG, R.J., LUBART, T., 1991, An in-vestment theory of creativity and its development.Human Development, 34, 1, 1-31.

STERNBERG, R.J., LUBART, T., 1995, Defyingthe crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of con-formity. New York: Free Press.

TIERNEY, P., FARMER, S.M., 2002, Creativeself-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relation-ship to creative performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 45, 6, 1137-1148.

TORRANCE, E.P., 1974, Torrance tests of cre-ative thinking: Norms and technical manual. Lex-ington, MA: Personnel.

TORRANCE, E.P., 1988, The nature of creativ-ity as manifest in its testing. In: R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychologi-cal perspectives (pp. 43-75). Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

TORRANCE, E.P., 1990, Torrance Tests of Cre-ative Thinking: Directions manual verbal forms Aand B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

WAKEFIELD, J.F., 1988, Review of the testGroup Inventory for Finding Creative Talent. In:D.J. Keyser, R.C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques(Vol. 2, pp. 332-336). Kansas City: Test Corpora-tion of America.

WARD, T.B., 2001, Creative cognition, concep-tual combination, and the creative writing of StephenR. Donaldson. American Psychologist, 56, 4, 350-354.

WARD, T.B., FINKE, R.A., SMITH, S.M., 1995,Creativity and the mind: Discovering the geniuswithin. New York: Plenum Press.


WARD, T.B., WICKES, K.N.S., 2009, Stable anddynamic properties of category structure guideimaginative thought. Creativity Research Journal,21, 1, 15-23.

Annex 1: Analogical and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ)

WEISBERG, R.W., y HASS, R., 2007, We are allpartly right: Comment on Simonton. CreativityResearch Journal, 19, 4, 345-360.

ITEMS 1. Describe what the proposed problem consists of.

___________________________________________________________

2. Remember similar examples to the proposed problem and generate ideas about the problem that are varied and original. ___________________________________________________________

3. Indicate similarities between the principal characteristics of the examples and the ideas generated in the previous item and the principal characteristics of the proposed problem.

Principal characteristics Similar examples

a) ________________ b) _________________

Experienced Problem a) ________________ b) _________________

4. Indicate similarities between the secondary characteristics of the examples and the ideas generated in the previous item and the secondary characteristics of the proposed problem.

Secondary characteristics Similar examples

a) ________________ b) _________________

Experienced Problem a) _________________ b) _________________

5. Suggest solutions to the proposed problem, taking into account your previous replies. a)_____________________________________________________________ b)_____________________________________________________________

6. Among the solutions proposed in the previous item, choose the most appropriate one to solve the problem. a)_____________________________________________________________ b)_____________________________________________________________

7. Discover the possible difficulties that the solution chosen to solve the problem may present. a)_____________________________________________________________ b)_____________________________________________________________


Annex 2: Scoring Norms of the Analogical and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ)

Annex 2 continues

Scoring Norms Analogical Component Creative Component

1. Describe what the proposed problem consists of. 0 points: if the description of the

problem is erroneous

1 point: if the description of the problem is incomplete

2 points: if the description of the problem is complete and detailed

2. Remember similar examples to the proposed problem and generate ideas about the problem that are varied and original.

0 points: if no similar example is remembered

1 point: if only one example is remembered

2 points: if two or more examples are remembered

- Fluidity: 0 Points: if no ideas or just one idea is

generated 1 point: if two ideas are generated 2 points: if three or more ideas are

generated

- Flexibility: 0 points: if the ideas generated belong

to the same category 1 point: if the ideas generated belong to

two categories 2 points: if the ideas generated belong

to three or more categories

- Originality: 0 points: if the ideas generated are

shared by 95% of the group 1 point: if the ideas generated are

shared by 5% 2 points: if the ideas generated are

shared by 2%


Annex 2 (continued)

Annex 2 continues

3. Indicate similarities between the main characteristics of the examples and the ideas generated in the previous item and the main characteristics of the proposed problem.

0 points: if no similarity with the example is indicated

1 point: if one similarity is indicated

2 points: if two or more similarities are indicated

- Fluidity: 0 points: if no similarities or just one

similarity with the ideas generated are indicated

1 point: if two similarities are indicated 2 points: if three or more similarities

are indicated

- Flexibility: 0 points: if the similarities belong to

the same category 1 point: if the similarities belong to two

categories 2 points: if the similarities belong to

three or more categories

- Originality: 0 points: if the similarities are shared

by 95% of the group 1 point: if the similarities are shared by

5% 2 points: if the similarities are shared

by 2% 4. Indicate similarities between the secondary characteristics of the examples and

the ideas generated in the previous item and the secondary characteristics of the proposed problem.

0 points: if no similarity is indicated

1 point: if one similarity is indicated

2 points: if two or more similarities are indicated

- Fluidity: 0 points: if no similarities or just one

similarity with the ideas generated are indicated

1 point: if two similarities are indicated 2 points: if three or more similarities

are indicated


Annex 2 (continued)

Annex 2 continues

- Flexibility: 0 points: if the similarities belong to

the same category 1 point: if the similarities belong to two

categories 2 points: if the similarities belong to

three or more categories

- Originality: 0 points: if the similarities are shared

by 95% of the group 1 point: if the similarities are shared by

5% 2 points: if the similarities are shared

by 2% 5. Suggest solutions to the proposed problem, taking into account your previous

replies. 0 points: if the solutions are not

related to any previous reply

1 point: if the solutions are related to one previous reply

2 points: if the solutions are related to two or more previous replies

- Fluidity: 0 points: if no solution or just one

solution is suggested 1 point: if two solutions are suggested 2 points: if three or more solutions are

suggested

- Flexibility: 0 points: if the solutions belong to the

same category 1 point: if the solutions belong to two

categories 2 points: if the solutions belong to three

or more categories

- Originality: 0 points: if the solutions suggested are

shared by 95% 1 point: if the solutions suggested are

shared by 5% 2 points: if the solutions suggested are

shared by 2%


Annex 2 (continued)

6. Among the solutions proposed in the previous item, choose the most appropriate one to solve the problem.

0 points: if no solution is chosen

1 point: if an inappropriate solution is chosen

2 points: if the most appropriate solution is chosen

- Originality: 0 points: if the solution chosen is

shared by 95% 1 point: if the solution chosen is shared

by 5% 2 points: if the solution chosen is

shared by 2% 7. Discover the possible difficulties that the solution chosen to solve the problem

may present. - Fluidity:

0 points: if no difficulty or just one difficulty is discovered

1 point: if two difficulties are discovered

2 points: if three or more difficulties are discovered

- Flexibility: 0 points: if the difficulties belong to the

same category 1 point: if the difficulties belong to two categories

2 points: if the difficulties belong to three or more categories

- Originality: 0 points: if the difficulties are shared

by 95% 1 point: if the difficulties are shared by

5% 2 points: if the difficulties are shared

by 2%


Annex 3: Interpretation Norms of the Analogical and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ)

Interpretation Norms Analogical Component Creative Component

Total score: 12 points

1-3 points: low analogical level 4-8 points: medium analogical level 9-12 points: high analogical level

Total score: 32 points

1-10 points: low creativity 11-23 points: medium creativity 24-32 points: high creativity * Fluidity: 10 points

1-3 points: low fluidity 4-7 points: medium fluidity 8-10 points: high fluidity * Flexibility: 10 points

1-3 points: low flexibility 4-7 points: medium flexibility 8- 10 points: high flexibility * Originality: 12 points

1-3 points: low originality 4-8 points: medium originality 9-12 points: high originality

Annex 4: Problems used in the study

The Radiation Problem. A doctor has a patient with a malignant tumor in his stom-ach. The tumor cannot be operated on, but if it is not destroyed, the patient will die.There is a kind of ray that can be used to destroy the tumor. If the ray reaches the tumorall at once and with a sufficiently high intensity, it will destroy the tumor, although itwill also destroy the healthy tissue it must go through to reach the tumor. With a lowerintensity, the ray will not harm the healthy tissue, but in that case, it will not affect thetumor either. What kind of procedure could be used to destroy the tumor with the rayand, at the same time, avoid destroying the healthy tissue?

Annex 4 continues


Annex 4 (continued)

The General’s problem. In a small country, a dictator ruled from his fort, which wassituated in the center of the nation and surrounded by farms and small villages. Fromall over the country, there were roads going towards the fort. A rebel General hadsworn to take the fort and overthrow the dictator. He knew that he could conquer thefort with a joint attack by all his soldiers. Therefore, he gathered his army at the headof one of the routes to prepare it to launch a direct attack, but then, the General foundout that the dictator had mined each of the roads. The mines were placed so that smallgroups of men could walk through them without any danger, because the dictatorneeded his troops and workers to be able to enter and leave the fort. However, anylarge group of people could cause the mines to explode, and this would not only blockthe road but would also destroy many nearby villages. Therefore, taking the fortseemed impossible. What kind of procedure could be used to take the fort and, at thesame time, avoid the destruction of the army and the nearby villages?

The Light Bulb Problem. In the physics laboratory of an important university, a veryexpensive light bulb that emitted precisely controlled quantities of light was beingused. Anna was the laboratory assistant in charge of handling the delicate light bulb.One morning, she came into the laboratory and saw that the light bulb was not work-ing. She remembered that the night before, she had forgotten to disconnect it. As aresult, it had become overheated and the two filaments inside the light bulb had fusedtogether. The glass that enclosed the light bulb hermetically could not be opened.

Anna knew that there were some laser rays that could separate the two filamentsthat had become fused together. The laboratory also had the necessary equipment toperform this operation. However, the high-intensity laser rays would separate thefilaments but they would also break the fragile glass that enclosed them, whereas withlower intensities, the rays would not break the glass, but they would not separate thefilaments either. How did Anna solve the problem?

VÝVOJ A VALIDIZÁCIA DOTAZNÍKA NA HODNOTENIE ANALÓGIE ATVORIVOSTI PRI RIEŠENÍ OTVORENÝCH PROBLÉMOV

M. L. S a n z d e A c e d o L i z a r r a g a, M. T. S a n z d e A c e d o B a q u e d a n o,A. H. C l o s a s

Súhrn: Hlavným zámerom štúdie je vytvoriť a overiť dotazník na analýzu analogických atvorivých procesov, ktoré ľudia používajú pri riešení otvorených problémov. Výskumu sa zúčastnilo349 osôb vo veku 14–15 rokov, z toho 147 chlapcov a 202 dievčat, ktorí navštevovali štátne ištátom podporované súkromné školy v Navarre (Španielsko). Použili sme štvorfázovú sekvenciu:vypracovanie položiek dotazníka, administrácia testov analogického usudzovania a tvorivosti,tréning analogických procesov a tvorivých komponentov, a riešenie otvoreného problému,odpovede na dotazník boli získavané individuálne. Psychometrická analýza ukázala, žesedempoložkový Dotazník analógie a tvorivosti (Analogical and Creative Questionnaire (ACQ))je dostatočne vnútorne konzistentný, má jasnú faktorovú štruktúru a prijateľnú konvergentnú aobsahovú validitu.

development and validation of a questionnaire to … · studia psychologica, 53, 2011, 3 235...

Documents