Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

SIGNUM TEMPORIS

Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology; The Journal of Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy

1 Issue per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1691-4929
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Adaptation of Runco Ideational Behavior Scale in Latvia

Emīls Kālis / Līga Roķe
Published Online: 2013-02-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10195-011-0043-4

ABSTRACT

Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS) was developed as an alternative instrument to measure creativity in contrast with divergent thinking tests which have only moderate predictive validity. Measure of RIBS is based on the assumption that ideas are the products of original, divergent, and creative thinking behaviour which one can observe and report about his/herself. The aim of the study was to adapt RIBS in Latvia. For the estimation of psychometric properties and constructing validity with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) two samples were involved - initial sample (N=107) and comparison sample (N=130). After evaluating the Latvian version of RIBS, two issues were identified: the first pertains to reversed items which have no sufficient shared variance with the total scale while the second issue points to serious problems of model fit challenging one factor solution of ideational behaviour.

The possible reasons of these problems are discussed and further steps for RIBS development are proposed, including a change of response scale in order to test the effect of reversed items, establishing the validity with other instruments and investigating the appropriate number of factors to reveal more valid structure of ideational behaviour. Similar to the original RIBS the adapted version also has low factorial validity and thus is temporarily recommended only for studies with purpose to develop this instrument.

Keywords : confirmatory factor analysis; creative ideation; creativity; reliability; validity

  • Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: the role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60−69.Google Scholar

  • Bernstein, I. H., Garbin, C., & Teng, G. (1988). Applied multivariate analysis. New York: Springer‑Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Bernstein, I. H. & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467-477.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar

  • Browne, M. W. & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K.A.Bollen. & J. S.Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of a test. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fiske, D. W. & Butler, J. M. (1963). The experimental conditions for measuring individual differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-266.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Flora, D. B. & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-491.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. A. Harkness, F.van de Vijver, & P. Ph. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp.35-56). New Jersey: Hoboken.Google Scholar

  • Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.Google Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide, 6th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2002). Mplus, 2nd Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar

  • Nunnaly, J. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Panter, A. T., Swygert, K. A., Dahlstrom, W. G. & Tanaka, J. S. (1997). Factor analytic approaches to personality item-level data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 561-589.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R J. Sternberg (Eds.), TheCambridge handbook of creativity (pp.48-73).Google Scholar

  • Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A. & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 55-63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundationfor statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://www.R-project. org/.Google Scholar

  • Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Revelle, W. (2009-2010). Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. R package version 1.0-92. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from http://personality-project.org/.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A. & Richards, R. (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

  • Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A. & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3&4), 393-400.Google Scholar

  • Sijtsma, K. (2008). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika,74(1), 107-120.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. M. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented Stumm, S., Chung, A. & Furnham A. (2011). Creative ability, creative ideation and latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 5(2), 107-114.Google Scholar

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Tucker, L. R. & MacCallum, R. C. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary andcontinuous outcomes. Submitted doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

  • Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I. & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωH : Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133. at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-02-01

Published in Print: 2011-12-01


Citation Information: Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology "Signum Temporis", ISSN (Online) , ISSN (Print) 1691-4929, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10195-011-0043-4.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in