Development and preliminary validation of the 20-item Kaufman domains of Creativity Scale for use with Malaysian populations
- 10 Downloads
The 50-item Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS; Kaufman Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308, 2012) is a relatively new domain-specific self-report scale designed to assess the five different domains of creativity. However, a shorter form of the scale is preferable to reduce participants’ burden. The present research addresses the development of a shorter 20-item K-DOCS (20-K-DOCS) to be used on Malaysian undergraduates across three studies (N = 1409). On the basis of past findings, the four items with the highest factor loading for each of the five domains were extracted to construct the 20-K-DOCS in Study 1. Exploratory factor analysis on the 20 items showed support to the theoretical five-factor structure. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine and compare the 20-K-DOCS with the parent form of K-DOCS and other competing models. Results indicated that the 20-K-DOCS were superior to all the alternative models. In Study 3, the factorial structure of the 20-K-DOCS was further examined. The five-factor model was supported. Moreover, the 20-K-DOCS showed good internal consistency and acceptable convergence with creative self-efficacy and self-rated creativity. The findings of this study strengthen the evidence that the 20-K-DOCS is a psychometrically equivalent short form of the original K-DOCS. Researchers and educators may consider this brief measurement to assess the five different domains of students’ creativity.
KeywordsKaufman domains of creativity scale Self-report Domain-specific Malaysia Factor analysis
The authors would like to thank Drs. James C. Kaufman and Alexander McKay for their feedback and helpful information throughout the development of this manuscript.
This project was funded by the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (IPSR/RMC/UTARRF/2015-C1/T01) awarded to the first author.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Department of Statistics Malaysia (2017). Bab 4-Pendidikan 2017 [Data file]. Retrieved from https://newss.statistics.gov.my/newss-portalx/ep/epFreeDownloadContentSearch.seam?contentId=58391&actionMethod=ep%2FepFreeDownloadContentSearch.xhtml%3AcontentAction.doDisplayContent&cid=86529.
- Ivcevic, Z. (2007). Artistic and everyday creativity: An act-frequency approach. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2007.tb01074.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: A structural model for self-reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01310.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 269–302). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000074.
- Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb01387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The east and the west. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01069.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X. (2000). Concepts of creativity: Similarities and differences among Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01210.cx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G., J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,24(1), 92–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Tan, C. S., & Hashim, I. H. M. (2009). An investigation on relationships between creativity, problem solving and life stress: A study on Malaysian university students. In J. L. S. Jaafar & S. McCarthy (Eds.), Building Asian families and communities in the 21st century: Selected proceeds of the 2nd Asian Psychological Association Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, June, 2008 (pp. 338–360). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
- Tan, C. S., & Ong, A. W. H. (2017). Psychometric qualities and measurement invariance of the modified self-rated creativity scale. Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.222.
- Tan, C. S., & Qu, L. (2012). Generality and specificity: Malaysian undergraduate students’ self-reported creativity. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 22(2), 19–30.Google Scholar
- Tan, C. S., & Viapude, G. N. (2015). The best-known creator in the eye of Malaysian undergraduates. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities”, Songkhla, Thailand. ISSN: 1906–9448.Google Scholar
- Tan, M., Mourgues, C., Hein, S., MacCormick, J., Barbot, B., & Grigorenko, E. (2015). Differences in judgments of creativity: How do academic domain, personality, and self-reported creativity influence novice judges’ evaluation of creative productions? Journal of Intelligence, 3, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tan, C. S., Tan, S. A., Cheng, S. M., & Hashim, I. H. M. (2016). Factor structure and psychometric qualities of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. Paper presented at the international conference on education and psychology 2016 (ICEduPsy16) at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. ISBN: 978-967-0582-51-1.Google Scholar
- Tan, C. Y., Chuah, C. Q., Lee, S. T., & Tan, C. S. (2017). Can Self-Perceived Creativity Foster Employees’ Subjective Well-being? Paper presented at the Malaysian International Psychology Conference 2017 (MIPC 2017), HELP University, Subang, Malaysia.Google Scholar
- Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
- Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J. & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/pubs/widaman_little_preacher_sawalani_2011.pdf.