Spletna stran Psiholoških obzorij uporablja piškotke za namene avtentikacije uporabnikov po prijavi na spletno stran, morebitno stalno prijavo na željo uporabnika in za namen beleženja števila ogledov posameznih strani Psiholoških obzorij.
Ali se strinjate, da na vaš računalnik (brskalnik) naložimo piškotke za te namene? Svojo odločitev lahko kasneje tudi spremenite na strani Zasebnost.

Želim izvedeti več

Psihološka obzorja :: Horizons of Psychology

Znanstveno-strokovna psihološka revija Društva psihologov Slovenije

Indeksirana v:
Scopus
PsycINFO
Academic OneFile

Smo člani DOAJ in CrossRef

sien
VSEBINA ZA AVTORJE PREDSTAVITEV UREDNIŠTVO POVEZAVE

Iskalnik

Moj račun

Članki z največ ogledi

 

« Nazaj na Letnik 28 (2019)

flag Go to the article page in English / Pojdi na angleško stran članka


Validacija slovenske oblike Kaufmanovega vprašalnika ustvarjalnih področij

Lina Faletič in Andreja Avsec

pdf Polno besedilo (pdf)  |  Ogledi: 110  |  flagNapisan v slovenščini.  |  Objavljeno: 22. avgust 2019

pdf https://doi.org/10.20419/2019.28.499  |  Citati: CrossRef (0)

Povzetek: Namen naše raziskave je bil sistematično raziskati merske značilnosti slovenskega prevoda Kaufmanovega vprašalnika ustvarjalnih področij K–DOCS, ki preko samoocenjevanja meri stopnjo ustvarjalnega vedenja na osebnem/medosebnem, študijskem, izvedbenem, tehničnem/znanstvenem in umetniškem področju. Udeleženci (N = 319) so izpolnili omenjeni vprašalnik in Vprašalnik velikih pet BFI–K. Konfirmatorna faktorska analiza vprašalnika K–DOCS je pokazala, da se petfaktorski model dobro prilega podatkom, torej je razvrstitev ustvarjalnega vedenja na pet področij, kot jih je predlagal avtor vprašalnika, ustrezna. Povezanost med petimi področji ustvarjalnosti ter velikimi petimi faktorji osebnosti se je ujemala s pričakovanji, saj se je z vsemi področji ustvarjalnosti, razen s tehničnim/znanstvenim, najbolj povezovala odprtost za izkušnje. Ravno tako so bili rezultati razlik med spoloma skladni s pričakovanji, saj so moški poročali o višji ustvarjalnosti na tehničnem/znanstvenem področju, ženske pa na umetniškem področju. Slovenski prevod Kaufmanovega vprašalnika ustvarjalnih področij se je izkazal kot zanesljiv in konstruktno veljaven inštrument za merjenje posameznikove ocene lastne ustvarjalnosti na petih področjih vsakodnevnega življenja.

Ključne besede: Kaufmanove lestvice ustvarjalnih področij, validacija, faktorska struktura, osebnostne lastnosti, razlike med spoloma


Citiraj:
Faletič, L. in Avsec, A. (2019). Validacija slovenske oblike Kaufmanovega vprašalnika ustvarjalnih področij [Validation of the Slovene form of Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale]. Psihološka obzorja, 28, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.20419/2019.28.499


Seznam literature v članku


Abraham, A. (2016). Gender and creativity: An overview of psychological and neuroscientific literature. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(2), 609–618. CrossRef

Abraham, A. in Windmann, S. (2007). Creative cognition: The diverse operations and the prospect of applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Methods, 42, 38–48. CrossRef

Allen, A. P. in Thomas, K. E. (2011). A dual process account of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 109–118. CrossRef

Carmeli, A. McKay, A. S. in Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Emotional intelligence and creativity: The mediating role of generosity and vigor. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4), 290–309. CrossRef

Carson, S., Peterson, J. B. in Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the Creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50. CrossRef

Conner, T. S. in Silvia, P. J. (2015). Creative days: A daily diary study of emotion, personality and everyday creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9(4), 463–470. CrossRef

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: An overview. V M. Csikszentmihalyi (ur.), Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (str. 337–342). New York, NY, ZDA: Harper Collins Publishers.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B. in Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46–52. CrossRef

Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K. in James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 35–47. CrossRef

Feist, G. J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity: The nature and nurture of the creative personality. V J. C. Kaufman in R. J. Sternberg (ur.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (str. 113–130). New York: Cambridge university press. CrossRef

Feist, G. J. in Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 62–88. CrossRef

Fürst, G., Ghisletta, P. in Lubart T. (2012). The creative process in visual art: A longitudinal multivariate study. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 283–295. CrossRef

Glăveanu, V. P. (2019). Measuring creativity across cultures: Epistemological and methodological considerations. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 13(2), 227–232. CrossRef

Grosul, M. in Feist G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 8(1), 30–43. CrossRef

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. CrossRef

IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY, ZDA: IBM Corp.

Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A. in Mayer, J. D. (2007). Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity. Journal of Personality, 75(2), 199–235. CrossRef

Ivcevic, Z. in Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 2(2–3), 152–165. CrossRef

Jeon, K., Moon, S. M. in French, B. (2011). Differential effects of divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and interest on creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 60–71. CrossRef

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M. in Kantle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA, ZDA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of personality and social research.

John, O. P. in Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. V L. A. Pervin in O. P. John (ur.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (str. 102–139). New York, NY, ZDA: Guilford press.

Karwowski, M. in Lebuda, I. (2015). The big five, the huge two and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 10(2), 214–232. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Koufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C. in Bear, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative – but not in mathematics!: Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143–155. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C. in Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83–91. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B. in DeYoung, C. G. (2014). Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 248–258. CrossRef

Kaufman, J. C., Waterstreet, M. A., Ailabouni, H. S., Whitcomb, H. J., Roe, A. K. in Riggs, M. (2010). Personality and self-perceptions of creativity across domains. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29(3), 193–209. CrossRef

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2/3), 57–66. CrossRef

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A. in Shahar, G. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the questions, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. CrossRef

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K. in Schoemann, M. (2013). Why the item versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. CrossRef

Ma, H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 30–42. CrossRef

McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M. in Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 216–230. CrossRef

Miller, A. L. (2014). A self-report measure of cognitive processes associated with creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 203–218. CrossRef

Muthén, L. K. in Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user'sguide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA, ZDA: Muthén & Muthén.

Osborne, J. W. in Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal component analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evolution, 9(11), 9–19.

Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general direction for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 258–264. CrossRef

Pretz, J. E. in McCollum, V. A. (2014). Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 8(2), 227–236. CrossRef

Rammstedt, B. in John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big five inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit [Kratka oblika Vprašalnika Velikih Pet (BFI-K): Razvoj in validacija kratkega vprašalnika za ocenjevanje petih faktorjev osebnosti]. Diagnostica, 51(4), 195–206. CrossRef

Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E. in Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. CrossRef

Runco, M. A. in Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. CrossRef

Silvia, P. (2018). Creativity is undefinable, controllable, and everywhere. V R. Sternberg in J. Kaufman (ur.), The nature of human creativity (str. 291–301). Cambridge, Združeno kraljestvo: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R. in 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. CrossRef

Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3–12. CrossRef

Stierand, M., Dörfler, V. in MacBryde, J. (2014). Creativity and innovation in Houte cuisine: toward a systematic model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1), 15–28. CrossRef

Zager Kocjan, G. (2016). Zavzetost, strast in zanos pri zaposlenih: Teoretična in empirična razmejitev (neobjavljena doktorska disertacija). Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Slovenija.

Zhang, L. in Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Revisiting the Investment theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 229–238. CrossRef


« Nazaj na Letnik 28 (2019)