The Development and Validation of a Figural Scientific Creativity Test for Preschool Pupils

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2015.612139   PDF   HTML   XML   2,545 Downloads   3,603 Views   Citations


Testing creativity in general has been well researched but little has been reported on the devel-opment of instruments to test scientific creativity among preschool pupils. This study described the development and validation of a Figural Scientific Creativity Test (FSCT) for preschool pupils. The FSCT consisted of six items which were constructed based on Scientific Creativity Structure Model and scored using an adapted Torrence Test of Creative Thinking. The items were developed through three dimensions called the product (scientific knowledge, scientific phenomena and scientific problem), the process (imagination and thinking) and the trait (fluency, originality, elaboration, abstractness of title and resistance to premature closure). All the items were developed and validated through analysis of item response data of 30 six-year-old preschool pupils in Kota Kinabalu district. Item analyses were conducted to check on item discrimination, Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient, item-total correlations, agreement between scorers, construct re-lated validity, content validity, face validity, and acceptability to pupils. All items showed discrim-ination coefficient range from 0.22 to 0.40. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.806. The item-total correlations range was within 0.541 to 0.866. The correlations between scorers varied from 0.780 to 0.933. FSCT was found to have a total of six items on one factor as a result of the exploratory factor analysis. The item analysis suggested that FSCT could be a reliable and valid instrument in assessing scientific creativity of six-year-old preschool pupils in preschool classrooms.

Share and Cite:

Chin, M. and Siew, N. (2015) The Development and Validation of a Figural Scientific Creativity Test for Preschool Pupils. Creative Education, 6, 1391-1402. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.612139.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Aktamiş, H., & Ergin, Ö. (2006). Fen Egitimive Yaraticilik (Science Education and Creativity). Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Education Journal, 20, 77-83.
[2] Albert, R. S. (1983). Genius Eminence. New York: Pergamon.
[3] Carson, S. H. (2011). Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 144-153.
[4] Chua, Y. P. (2006). Methods and Statistics: Elementary Statistics Research. Kuala Lumpur: McGraw-Hill (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
[5] Coakes, S. J. (2005). SPSS. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons Australis. Ltd.
[6] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
[7] Cox, J. R., & Jones, B. W. (2011). External Representations in the Teaching and Learning of Introductory Chemistry. Creative Education, 2, 461-465.
[8] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.
[9] Curriculum Development Centre (2001). National Preschool Curriculum. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
[10] Curriculum Development Centre (2010). National Pre-school Curriculum Standard. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
[11] Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
[12] do Ouro Lopes Silva, G., Fadel, S. de J., & Múglia Wechsler, S. (2013). Criatividade E Educação: Análise Da Produção Científica Brasileira [Creativity and Education: Analysis of the Brazilian Scientific Production]. ECCOS, 30, 165-181.
[13] Ebel, R. L. (1972). Essentials of Educational Measurement (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[14] Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s Gambit. New York: Basic Books.
[15] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
[16] Gardner, H. (2010). Five Minds for the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[17] Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[18] Guilford, J. P. (1956). The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
[19] Han, K. (2003). Domain-Specificity of Creativity in Young Children: How Quantitative and Qualitative Data Support It. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 117-142.
[20] Holden, R. B. (2010). Face Validity. In I. B. Weiner, & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[21] Horn, J., & Cattel, R. B. (1966). Refinement and Tests of the Theory of Fluid and Crystal-Lised Intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
[22] Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School Students. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 389-403.
[23] Jandaghi, G. (2010). Assessment of Validity, Reliability and Difficulty Indices for Teacher-Built Physics Exam Questions in First Year High School. Educational Research and Review, 5, 651-654.
[24] Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
[25] Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2008). Role of the Domain in Creative Learning in USA. In A. R. Craft, T. Cremin, & P. Burnard (Eds.), Creative Learning 3-11 and How We Document It (pp. 27-34). Staffordshire: Trentham Books.
[26] Kiamanesh, A. R. (2002). Assessment and Evaluation in Physics. Tehran: Ministry of Education Publications.
[27] Kline, P. (1993). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.
[28] Liang, J. (2002). Exploring Scientific Creativity of Eleventh Grade Students in Taiwan. PhD Thesis, Austin, TX: University of Texas.
[29] Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Perception and Cognition: Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 289-332). New York: Academic Press.
[30] Matlock-Hetzel, S. (1997). Basic Concepts in Item and Test Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, 23-25 January 1997.
[31] Meador, K. S. (1997). Creative Thinking and Problem Solving for Young Learners. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
[32] Ministry of Education Malaysia (2012). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
[33] Mohamed, A. (2006). Investigating the Scientific Creativity of Fifth-Grade Students. PhD Thesis, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
[34] Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392-410). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[35] Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the Finding and Solving of Real-Life Problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45-53.
[36] Pink, D. (2005). A Whole New Mind. New York: Riverhead Trade.
[37] Siew, N. M., & Chong, C. L. (2014). Fostering Students’ Creativity Through Van Hiele’s 5 Phase-Based Tangram Activities. Journal of Education and Learning, 3, 66-80.
[38] Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Chin, K. M. (2014). Developing a Scientific Creativity Test for Fifth Graders. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 62, 109-123.
[39] Soon, S. T. (2008). Data Analysis and Interpretation Using SPSS. Education Planning & Research Division, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.
[40] Sriraman, B. (2005). Are Giftedness and Creativity Synonyms in Mathematics? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20-36.
[41] Torrance, E. P., Ball, O. E., & Safter, H. T. (2008). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Streamlined Scoring Guide for Figural Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
[42] Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.