UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Development of a new criterion measure for creative problem solving ability Ellis, Julia Litwintschik 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 E42.pdf [ 2.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055682.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055682-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055682-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055682-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055682-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055682-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055682-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055682-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055682.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CRITERION MEASURE FOR CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY by JULIA LITWINTSCHIK ELLIS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION i n THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requ i r e d ^ standard The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia October, 1975 © J u l i a L i t w i n t s c h i k E l l i s , 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss i on . Department of AA WA T/Q/JAl Ps ¥Cf/t> < 0 £ Y The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 ^ t e ((/pTcyfju JX i i ABSTRACT The f i r s t purposes of t h i s p r o j e c t were to develop a new complex measure of c r e a t i v e problem-solving (SYOPT) and to develop s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r the items i n the new t e s t . In a d d i t i o n , evidence concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of four new v a r i a b l e s derived from the new measure was examined. Adequate l e v e l s of i n t e r - i t e m and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y were obtained f o r each of the four v a r i a b l e s . None of the four new v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y or even moderately w i t h a v a r i e t y of e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i a commonly ass o c i a t e d w i t h c r e a t i v i t y . The absence of such r e l a t i o n -ships was a t t r i b u t e d to both the r e s t r i c t e d range of the p o p u l a t i o n (only those grade three c h i l d r e n that were reading at grade l e v e l or above), and the f a c t that the measure was constructed so as to y i e l d a g l o b a l measure of c r e a t i v e behaviour ra t h e r than of unique, s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r subsequent research were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 1 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY . . , 3 F a c i l i t a t i o n : Techniques and Programs 3 L i m i t a t i o n s of E x i s t i n g Measures 5 Development of New Measures: Current Research . . . . 10 Summary 11 S p e c i f i c O b j ectives of the Study 13 I I I . METHOD 14 Po p u l a t i o n of I n t e r e s t and Sample Used. . . 14 Development of the New Measure 15 Development of Scoring C r i t e r i a f o r the New Measure 16 Procedures: I n v e s t i g a t i o n of V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y 21 Summary 23 IV. RESULTS 24 R e l i a b i l i t y Tests 24 C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h E x t e r n a l C r i t e r i a 25 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 27 Obje c t i v e One 27 Obje c t i v e Two 27 Obje c t i v e Three 28 D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research 30 Summary and Conclusions 31 i v Table of Contents cont'd CHAPTER PAGE REFERENCES 34 APPENDICES A. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES 37 B. "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM" QUESTIONNAIRE 38 C. SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS TEST 44 D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SYOPT 48 E. PROTOCOLS FOR SCORING THE FORT PROBLEM 50 F. PROTOCOLS FOR SCORING THE GUITAR PROBLEM 52 V LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG NEW VARIABLES 25 Table 2 CORRELATIONS OF FOUR NEWLY-DEVELOPED VARIABLES WITH 9 SELECTED EXTERNAL CREATIVITY CRITERIA 26 Table 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES. . . . 37 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Research i n the area of c r e a t i v i t y has r e s u l t e d i n the development of methods, techniques, i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and c u r r i c u l a which purport to f a c i l i t a t e c r e a t i v i t y . The r e s u l t s of many s t u d i e s u t i l i z i n g these programs and methods, suggest that i t i s p o s s i b l e to f a c i l i t a t e many divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s through d e l i b e r a t e t r a i n i n g or i n s t r u c t i o n (Torrance, 1972). While such t r a i n i n g programs may increase divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s , i t i s important to ask whether these programs a l s o increase a person's i n c l i n a t i o n or a b i l i t y to use these divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s to more q u i c k l y or e f f e c t i v e l y s o l v e the more complex problems which l i f e c o n s t a n t l y presents. Divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s are important c r i t e r i a i n c r e a t i v i t y - t r a i n i n g , but they should not be considered s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a ( T r e f f i n g e r , R e n z u l l i , and Feldhuser, 1971) f o r such t r a i n i n g programs. A c r i t i c a l problem f o r researchers and developers i n the area c r e a t i v i t y i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t e r i a which represent the complex problem s i t u a t i o n s w i t h which the subject must deal i n h i s o r d i n a r y l i f e experiences. I t must then be demonstrated that any t r a i n i n g being considered has had a f a c i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t on such c r i t e r i a , as w e l l as on s p e c i f i c divergent t h i n k i n g t a s k s . Related to t h i s measurement problem i s the matter of s e l e c t i n g c h i l d r e n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n programs designed to f a c i l i t a t e c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . I f a program i s intended to i n c r e a s e c h i l d r e n ' s 2 w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y t o cope w i t h r e a l l i f e problems c r e a t i v e l y , then c e r t a i n l y those c h i l d r e n that already demonstrate t h i s tendency might more r e a d i l y enjoy such a program and may stand to b e n e f i t most i n terms of l e a r n i n g . Very l i t t l e has been done e m p i r i c a l l y to j u s t i f y the means of p r e s e n t l y s e l e c t i n g c h i l d r e n i n terms of the l i k e l i h o o d of success on the part of s e l e c t e d c h i l d r e n (Blank, 1975). Because of the complexity of c r e a t i v e behaviour i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , any c r i t e r i o n measure used to assess t h i s behaviour should be a g l o b a l one which: incorporates c o g n i t i v e , p e r s o n a l i t y , and m o t i v a t i o n a l components ( D e l i a s , 1971; Rosenblum, 1970). F u r t h e r , i f performance on a problem s o l v i n g task i s to be used as a c r i t e r i o n measure, then the task should be considered meaningful by the s u b j e c t s , and should bear some l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to c r e a t i v e behaviour as i t occurs i n the " r e a l w o rld" ( T r e f f i n g e r , R e n z u l l i , and Feldhusen, 1971). In the proposed p r o j e c t an attempt w i l l be made to develop and v a l i d a t e a new c r i t e r i o n measure which w i l l meet the r e q u i r e -ments of research u t i l i z a t i o n , and provide a g l o b a l assessment of a subject's w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y to respond c r e a t i v e l y to problem s i t u a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the subject's o r d i n a r y l i f e experiences. 3 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Two important areas of concern i n the proposed research are l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to techniques and programs f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g c r e a t i v e behaviour, and recent theory and research concerned w i t h problems i n the assessment of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g and problem s o l v i n g . These two areas w i l l be reviewed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . F a c i l i t a t i o n ; Techniques and Programs Torrance (.1972) surveys 142 s t u d i e s of teaching c h i l d r e n to t h i n k c r e a t i v e l y . He organizes h i s data from these s t u d i e s according to the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s of ways to teach c h i l d r e n to t h i n k c r e a t i v e l y : 1. t r a i n i n g programs emphasizing the Osborn-Parnes C r e a t i v e Problem S o l v i n g procedures (Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967 ab) or m o d i f i c a t i o n or these; 2. other d i s c i p l i n e d approaches such as t r a i n i n g i n general semantics, c r e a t i v e research, and the l i k e ; 3. complex programs i n v o l v i n g packages of m a t e r i a l s , such as the Purdue C r e a t i v i t y Program; Covington, C r u t c h f i e l d and Davies' (1972) Productive Thinking Program; and the Myers and Torrance (1964, 1965 ab, 1966ab) idea books; 4. the c r e a t i v e a r t s as a v e h i c l e f o r teaching and p r a c t i c i n g c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g ; 4 5. media and reading programs designed to teach and give p r a c t i c e i n c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g ; 6. c u r r i c u l a r and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements designed to create favourable c o n d i t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g and p r a c t i c i n g c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g ; 7. teacher-classroom v a r i a b l e s , i n d i r e c t and d i r e c t c o n t r o l , classroom c l i m a t e , and the l i k e ; 8. m o t i v a t i o n , reward, competition, and the l i k e ; and 9. t e s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s designed to f a c i l i t a t e a higher l e v e l of c r e a t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g or more v a l i d and r e l i a b l e t e s t performance. Most of the stu d i e s surveyed used t e s t s of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g and other c r e a t i v e school performance as c r i t e r i a . The most s u c c e s s f u l approaches seem to be those that provide f o r d e l i b e r a t e teaching of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g s k i l l s , m o t i v a t i o n to use these s k i l l s , and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r involvement, p r a c t i c e , and i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h teachers and other c h i l d r e n . Torrance makes t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n and concludes that i t does seem p o s s i b l e to teach c h i l d r e n to t h i n k c r e a t i v e l y . R e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s r e f e r r e d to above suggest that i t i s p o s s i b l e to e f f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t f a c i l i t a t i o n of divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s , Covington and C r u t c h f i e l d (1965) b e l i e v e that they have demonstrated that the e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g p e r s i s t over time. Olton (1969) , R i p p l e and Dacey (.1967) , and Tref f i n g e r and R i p p l e (1969) contend that they have provided evidence that i n s t r u c t e d subjects are s u p e r i o r to c o n t r o l s i n performance on s e v e r a l problem s o l v i n g t a s k s , Parnes and Meadow (1959), and T r e f f i n g e r and R i p p l e (1969) 5 b e l i e v e that they have provided evidence that i n s t r u c t e d subjects are s u p e r i o r to c o n t r o l s on measures of p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s and a t t i t u d e s . Very l i t t l e has been done however, to demonstrate that t r a i n i n g programs or procedures have had an e f f e c t on more complex, n a t u r a l i s t i c or " r e a l l i f e " problem-solving c r i t e r i a . Researchers need to know not only whether a given t r a i n i n g program can be e f f e c t i v e , but a l s o who can b e n e f i t from t h i s k i n d of program. Blank (.1975) , i n reviewing programs f o r the g i f t e d and c r e a t i v e c h i l d i n op e r a t i o n i n Western Canada, p o i n t s out that there i s no evidence that the means of s e l e c t i n g c h i l d r e n , or the b a s i s upon which c h i l d r e n have been s e l e c t e d can be j u s t i f i e d i n terms of e m p i r i c a l data regarding the l i k e l i h o o d of success on the part of the c h i l d r e n s e l e c t e d . L i m i t a t i o n s of E x i s t i n g Measures While researchers have made s u b s t a n t i a l progress i n the development of v a l i d , r e l i a b l e , useable measures f o r c r e a t i v i t y ( G u i l f o r d , 1967b; 1970), there are many problems which s t i l l remain unsolved ( T r e f f i n g e r , R e n z u l l i and Felhusen, 1971). A comprehensive measure of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l i s not provided by e x i s t i n g measures of f l u e n c y , f l e x i b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y and e l a b o r a t i o n ( i e . G u i l f o r d , 1967a; Torrance, 1966). G u i l f o r d (1967a, 1971) discusses the importance ( i n S t r u c t u r e - o f - I n t e l l e c t terminology) of other a b i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g those which i n v o l v e transformations as products, and s e v e r a l which i n v o l v e behavioural 6 content as aspects of c r e a t i v i t y . F u r t h e r , i t has been argued that a number of p e r s o n a l i t y and a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s are very l i k e l y to be important components of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l ( D e l i a s and G a i e r , 1970). Covington ( i n press) has argued that because of the complexity of the c r e a t i v e process, any attempt to assess c r e a t i v i t y which r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on " f a c t o r i a l l y pure" t e s t s of s p e c i f i c a p t i t u d e s would be non-comprehensive. G u i l f o r d (1971) too has contended that no s i n g l e a p t i t u d e , nor even a set of measures of s i m i l a r a p t i t u d e s , such as divergent t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s , should be expected to c o r r e l a t e very h i g h l y w i t h other c r i t e r i a of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l . L o g i c a l l y then, e x i s t i n g measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g are l i m i t e d i n value. T e c h n i c a l and methodological l i m i t a t i o n s of these measures a l s o a f f e c t the use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of them. The f o l l o w i n g i s a b r i e f review of t e c h n i c a l and methodological problems p a r t i c u l a r to c r e a t i v i t y measures. Content V a l i d i t y I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h content v a l i d i t y f o r a c r e a t i v i t y measure without an adequately defined universe of behaviour from which to sample ( T r e f f i n g e r and Poggio, 1972). Torrance (.1966) has argued that i t would be impossible to develop a comprehensive b a t t e r y of t e s t s of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g that would sample any k i n d of universe of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s . Covington ( i n press) has described methodological problems 7 r e l a t e d to content v a l i d i t y . He argued that i n attempting to develop measures of c r e a t i v i t y that " f i t " w e l l i n t o e s t a b l i s h e d psychometric procedures, researchers have o f t e n s a c r i f i c e d some of the e s s e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e s of the c r e a t i v e process. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Covington contended that t r a d i t i o n a l mental measurement procedures are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by timed, speeded performance on a l a r g e number of d i s c r e e t items, items which represent a r t i f i c i a l and h i g h l y c o n t r i v e d s i t u a t i o n s , and an emphasis on standardized s c o r i n g procedures and unique s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s , w i t h c l e a r l y defined and presented requirements and d i r e c t i o n s . By c o n t r a s t , he argued, the c r e a t i v e process i s u s u a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by intense personal involvement i n one r e a l problem, over a long p e r i o d of time, w i t h an emphasis on ordering the problem, c o - o r d i n a t i n g or managing one's e f f o r t s and a t t a i n i n g a personal s o l u t i o n . Concurrent and P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y There have been many d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i d e n t i f y i n g r e l i a b l e e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i a f o r e i t h e r concurrent or p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y . Obviously problems i n e s t a b l i s h i n g concurrent v a l i d i t y a r i s e when a t r a i n i n g program i s designed to teach a process, but the c r i t e r i o n measures used give scores only on the b a s i s of product (Parnes and T r e f f i n g e r , 1973). Less o b v i o u s l y , e x i s t i n g measures of c r e a t i v i t y are measuring s p e c i f i c , unique a b i l i t i e s , and one cannot expect these measures to c o r r e l a t e w e l l w i t h other c r i t e r i a which are tapping more and/or d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s ( G u i l f o r d , 1971). The complex nature of the c r e a t i v e process poses s p e c i a l 8 problems i n e s t a b l i s h i n g p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y f o r any c r e a t i v i t y measure. Without more knowledge about the s t a b i l i t y of the t r a i t , c r e a t i v i t y , and without knowledge or c o n t r o l of important v a r i a b l e s i n people's l i v e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y f o r any c r e a t i v i t y measure. R e l i a b i l i t y T r e f f i n g e r and Poggio (1972) contend that there i s a need f o r s t u d i e s to i n v e s t i g a t e new methods of determining the accuracy or r e l i a b i l i t y of measures of c r e a t i v i t y . F u r t h e r , they argue, there i s a need t o : determine the extent to which c r e a t i v i t y should be expected to be a s t a b l e t r a i t ; i d e n t i f y appropriate i n t e r v a l s f o r a s s e s s i n g s t a b i l i t y ; and assess s y s t e m a t i c a l l y the i n f l u e n c e of m o t i v a t i o n , moods and other s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s on r e l i a b i l i t y of t e s t scores. With regards to the use of a l t e r n a t e forms or i n t e r n a l consistency i n d i c e s of r e l i a b i l i t y , problems a r i s e i n the s e l e c t i o n and use of subtests from l a r g e r b a t t e r i e s s i n c e tasks i n c r e a t i v i t y subtests may not be d i s c r e e t "items"; and scores derived from v a r i o u s tasks may n e i t h e r be a d d i t i v e nor meet many fundamental assumptions i n v o l v e d i n the t r a d i t i o n a l determination of r e l i a b i l i t y i n d i c e s ( T r e f f i n g e r and Poggio, 1972). U s e a b i l i t y In d i s c u s s i n g problems of u s e a b i l i t y , T r e f f i n g e r and Poggio (1972) propose the need to i n v e s t i g a t e new methods and c r i t e r i a f o r s c o r i n g ( e s p e c i a l l y f o r o r i g i n a l i t y and " i m a g i n a t i o n " ) . 9 They a l s o r e f e r to the problems concerning v a r i a t i o n s i n t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedures and c o n d i t i o n s , c o m p a r a b i l i t y of scores derived from d i f f e r e n t tasks and d i f f e r e n t methods of t e s t i n g , and the frequent inadequacy of norms used f o r e x i s t i n g measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . The r e s u l t s of research i n problem-solving measurement or t r a i n i n g do not lend themselves to any form of s y n t h e s i s . Many st u d i e s have used as a c r i t e r i o n measure, a task e s p e c i a l l y constructed f o r the study. Such c r i t e r i a have seldom been used by other researchers and f r e q u e n t l y l a c k evidence concerning v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . L i t t l e has been done to analyze the performance r e q u i r e d by a problem-solving task i n r e l a t i o n to the s t r u c t u r e or content of the t r a i n i n g program or experimental manipulation. Research has i n d i c a t e d however that there does not appear to be a s i n g l e u n i t a r y problem-solving a p t i t u d e ( G u i l f o r d et a l . , 1962). Thus the researcher or developer i n the area of c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g i s confronted w i t h many d i f f i c u l t i e s . E x i s t i n g measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s provide u s e f u l p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n and c o n t r i b u t e importantly to the o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g , but are l i m i t e d i n a v a r i e t y of ways. E x i s t i n g problem-solving tasks are a l s o l i m i t e d i n many important ways and there does not appear to e x i s t any s i n g l e instrument or b a t t e r y of t e s t s f o r comprehensive assessment of problem-solving a b i l i t i e s . 10 Development of New Measures: Current Research C e r t a i n l y e f f o r t s are being made to develop and t e s t new measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g and problem s o l v i n g . The usefulness of these t e s t s i s l i m i t e d by s c o r i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , r e l i a n c e on s p e c i f i c subject matter, or p o p u l a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y . I t i s note-worthy that l i t t l e i s being done to develop t e s t s f o r c h i l d r e n younger than age eleven, and i t i s at the beginning of grade four that many developers would l i k e to begin c r e a t i v e problem-solving programs. Covington ( i n press) and h i s a s s o c i a t e s at the Berkeley C r e a t i v i t y P r o j e c t have attempted to develop t e s t s of c r e a t i v e problems-solving i n a programmed i n s t r u c t i o n a l format. These t e s t s are being designed f o r use w i t h f i f t h - and sixth-grade students; they r e l y h e a v i l y on reading and w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s ; and r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about t h e i r v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . Purdue U n i v e r s i t y ' s "Belmont P r o j e c t " (Asher et a l . , 1970) has been attempting to develop new measures of complex c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g . This p r o j e c t however focusses i t s e f f o r t s only on the development of measures f o r accurate assessment of s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s among disadvantaged groups of elementary school c h i l d r e n . M i l e s (1968) has worked on the development of " r e a l l i f e " c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a i n i n g i n problem s o l v i n g . The measures developed however, were h i g h l y s p e c i f i c to the t r a i n i n g program in v o l v e d (e.g. c r e a t i v e design students; or Peace Corps V o l u n t e e r s ) , and l i t t l e v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y 11 i n f o r m a t i o n has been provided. T r e f f i n g e r (1970) has attempted to develop current and re l e v a n t problem s o l v i n g tasks f o r f i f t h and s i x t h grade c h i l d r e n but encountered s c o r i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . Parnes and T r e f f i n g e r (1973) have attempted to develop new complex c r i t e r i a f o r assessing the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g among c o l l e g e undergraduate students. The content of the tasks developed were s p e c i f i c to c o l l e g e under-graduate students and these measures are i n an e a r l y stage of development. Summary Divergent t h i n k i n g measures are important c r i t e r i a i n the assessment of c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g , but should not be considered s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i a f o r such programs because of the conceptual and t e c h n i c a l problems i n v o l v e d i n assessing c r e a t i v i t y . Some of the problems reviewed are summarized as f o l l o w s : (.1) A comprehensive measure of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l i s not provided by e x i s t i n g measures of f l u e n c y , f l e x i b i l i t y , o r i g i n a l i t y and e l a b o r a t i o n . (2) I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h content v a l i d i t y f o r a c r e a t i v i t y measure without an adequately defined universe of behaviour from which to sample. (.3) In order to develop measures of c r e a t i v i t y that " f i t " w e l l i n t o e s t a b l i s h e d psychometric procedures, we have o f t e n s a c r i f i c e d 12 some of the e s s e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e s of the c r e a t i v e process. (4) I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y f o r any c r e a t i v i t y measure without more knowledge about the s t a b i l i t y of the t r a i t , c r e a t i v i t y , and without knowledge or c o n t r o l of important v a r i a b l e s i n people's l i v e s . (5) There i s a need to i n v e s t i g a t e new methods and c r i t e r i a f o r s c o r i n g . (6) Current measures being developed are o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by sc o r i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s , r e l i a n c e on s p e c i f i c subject matter or population s p e c i f i c i t y . Because e x i s t i n g measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g do not provide a comprehensive assessment of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l or c r e a t i v e problem-solving a b i l i t i e s , i t would appear that a d d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a are needed. These c r i t e r i a should be meaningful, c o n s i s t e n t and useable and should inc o r p o r a t e c o g n i t i v e , p e r s o n a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n a l components. Fu r t h e r , such c r i t e r i a should be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s u b j e c t s ' o r d i n a r y l i f e experiences that r e q u i r e c r e a t i v e responses i n order to p r e d i c t to behaviour i n such s i t u a t i o n s . Of immediate concern, i t i s apparent that no new measures are being developed f o r use w i t h elementary school c h i l d r e n and many program developers would l i k e both to evaluate c r e a t i v e problem-solving programs commencing at t h i s l e v e l (eg. grade f o u r ) ; and to have more in f o r m a t i o n regarding optimum s e l e c t i o n procedures f o r such programs. 13 S p e c i f i c Objectives of the Study As part of the general goal of developing a new complex c r i t e r i o n measure of c r e a t i v e problem-solving a b i l i t i e s , the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s were formulated: (!) To develop a new measure i n which subjects are r e q u i r e d to provide m u l t i p l e s o l u t i o n s to " r e a l l i f e " problems which are meaningfully r e l a t e d to t h e i r own experiences. (.2) To develop useable s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r the new measure. (.3) To i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the new measure as i n d i c a t e d by i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h other c u r r e n t l y accepted c r i t e r i a . 14 CHAPTER I I METHOD The purposes of t h i s chapter are: Cl) to describe the p o p u l a t i o n of i n t e r e s t and sample used i n the study; (.2) to describe the procedures employed i n the development of the new measure: (.3) to describe the procedures followed i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the new measure; (4) to describe the procedures followed i n the development of the s c o r i n g ; and (5) to describe the procedures employed i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the new measure. Po p u l a t i o n of I n t e r e s t and Sample Used The p o p u l a t i o n of i n t e r e s t were those grade three c h i l d r e n i n the C h i l l i w a c k School D i s t r i c t having grade three reading a b i l i t y or b e t t e r . These c h i l d r e n numbered approximately 400. Out of p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of time and expense, only those grade three c h i l d r e n have the r e q u i r e d reading a b i l i t y t h a t could be found i n three of the l a r g e r schools i n the d i s t r i c t were included i n the sample. The three schools used were s e l e c t e d i n cooperation w i t h school board a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel to g e o g r a p h i c a l l y represent the d i s t r i c t . 1 5 Development of the New Measure In order to develop a problem-solving t e s t that would be meaningful to the s u b j e c t s , i t was decided that the subjects should provide examples of what they considered t h e i r problems to be. For t h i s purpose, a p i c t u r e - s t o r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , What's Your Problem?, was devised. (The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , What's Your Problem?, i s i n cluded i n Appendix B.) To complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the subjects drew and/or wrote about things that they wanted to do and why they could not do these t h i n g s . From a l l of the problems thus obtained, those problems which t h e m a t i c a l l y were the most f r e q u e n t l y expressed were i d e n t i f i e d . From these problems, two that most obviously l e n t themselves to m u l t i p l e s o l u t i o n s were s e l e c t e d f o r use as t e s t items f o r the new measure, Solve Your Own Problems Test, SYOPT. (The Solve Your Own Problems Test i s included i n Appendix C.) The two items were the Fort Problem: " I want to b u i l d a f o r t but I don't have any wood," and the G u i t a r Problem: " I want to get a g u i t a r but I'm saving my money to spend on our f a m i l y v a c a t i o n . " One problem, provided by the i n v e s t i g a t o r was s e l e c t e d as a warm-up item. This was the Boat Probem: " I want to go f o r a boat r i d e but my Boat has a hole i n i t . " The i n v e s t i g a t o r had used the Boat Problem as a warm-up item i n a p i l o t t e s t and was f a m i l i a r w i t h the way i t functioned when put to that use. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the New Measure Using four examiners, the new measure, SYOPT, was 16 administered i n d i v i d u a l l y to a l l subjects i n a s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n , approximately one month a f t e r the problems were i n i t i a l l y obtained from the s u b j e c t s . Two of the examiners were male..and two were female. This team of examiners included both l a y people and graduate students i n educational psychology. A l l t e s t i n g was conducted during three consecutive mornings. The examiners were provided w i t h a standard set of i n s t r u c t i o n s . These i n s t r u c t i o n s included a standard set of responses to use f o r s u b j e c t s ' questions or hes i t a n c y . The examiners p r a c t i c e d f o l l o w i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h h y p o t h e t i c a l responses provided by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . In the course of a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t e s t , the examiner i n v i t e d each subject to pretend to be the person i n the problem s i t u a t i o n s to be described and then to t e l l the examiner a l l the d i f f e r e n t ways he/she could t h i n k of to r e s o l v e the problem s i t u a t i o n s . The examiner's i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r SYOPT are inc l u d e d i n Appendix D. The examiner acknowledged a l l responses encouragingly, and wrote down a l l responses u n t i l the c h i l d s a i d that he/she could not t h i n k of any.more. Development of Scoring C r i t e r i a f o r the New Measure  Fort Problem I n i t i a l l y every d i f f e r e n t response rec e i v e d was recorded i n a s i n g l e l i s t . As there was no precedent f o r s c o r i n g such open-ended, complex t e s t items w i t h such y o u t h f u l subjects that 17 bad yielded a useable scoring procedure, i t was decided that the responses would be examined to see what scoring c r i t e r i a they best lent themselves to. Upon an examination of the t o t a l l i s t of responses i t became apparent that f i r s t , the responses varied according to the approach taken towards the problem, and secondly, each of the relevant responses f e l l into one of four general approaches. These observations were arri v e d at by the i n v e s t i g a t o r and one of the examiners. It was s t r i k i n g l y obvious that the four general approaches to the problem were q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from each other. These q u a l i t a t i v e differences seemed a t t r i b u t a b l e to the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a bstraction required to produce responses c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the d i f f e r e n t approaches. These approaches, representing d i f f e r e n t abstraction l e v e l s , seemed to form a l o g i c a l hierarchy. The d i r e c t i o n of the hierarchy was determined by the i n v e s t i g a t o r and examiner, number two, who independently a r r i v e d at the same decision , From least to most abstract, the four general approaches were; Cl) Get wood by r e l y i n g on other people's generosity. C2) Get wood by using own i n i t i a t i v e . C3) Use materials other than wood. (4) Use other, ready-made a v a i l a b l e quarters as a f o r t . In order to f i n d further support for the hypothesized hierarchy, an elementary teacher, and a psychologist with much 18 d i a g n o s t i c experience were consulted. Sample responses from each of the four approaches were given to these two people who were then asked to rank order the responses according to the complexity of c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y represented by the responses. Both of t h e i r rank orderings confirmed the hypothesized h i e r a r c h y . Further support f o r the rank o r d e r i n g was suggested by the lower frequency of responses i n approaches three and f o u r . ( i . e . The idea of using other, ready-made a v a i l a b l e quarters as a f o r t was the l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y mentioned by the c h i l d r e n , and was considered to be the most a b s t r a c t approach used. The idea of using m a t e r i a l s other than wood was the next l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y expressed idea and was considered to be the second most a b s t r a c t approach to the problem.) Through an examination of the i n d i v i d u a l s u b j ect's responses, i t became-clear that they v a r i e d f i r s t , according to the t o t a l number of responses given; and secondly, not so much i n the number of approaches used, but i n the l e v e l s of approaches used. I t was decided then that two scores could be de r i v e d from the responses. A Fluency score was obtained by making a simple count of a l l the relevant responses; a F l e x i b i l i t y score, ( f o r want of a more d e s c r i p t i v e l a b e l ) by the f o l l o w i n g procedure: f o r p r o v i d i n g at l e a s t one response w i t h i n one of the general approaches, the subject was given a score : f o r using the approach. Higher scores were a v a i l a b l e f o r using the more a b s t r a c t approaches. A score of one was given f o r usi n g the f i r s t approach, ( i . e . Get wood by r e l y i n g on other people's g e n e r o s i t y ) , a score of two f o r using the second approach, three f o r the t h i r d , and four f o r the f o u r t h . ( P r o t o c o l s f o r s c o r i n g the Fort Problem are in c l u d e d i n Appendix E.) Since the four approaches represented i n t e r v a l s on a h i e r a r c h y , the scores thus a r r i v e d at were then added to y i e l d a s i n g l e F l e x i b i l i t y score, A score was only given once f o r using any p a r t i c u l a r approach, so the highest F l e x i b i l i t y score p o s s i b l e was ten. A t o t a l p o s s i b l e score of ten r a t h e r than four enabled the subjects to o b t a i n scores f o r the l e v e l s of approaches used as w e l l as the number of approaches used. This F l e x i b i l i t y score i s a c t u a l l y a q u a l i t a t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y score s i n c e the subject gains p o i n t s not only f o r using d i f f e r e n t approaches, but a l s o f o r usi n g the more a b s t r a c t approaches. O r i g i n a l i t y i s a l s o represented i n the F l e x i b i l i t y s c o r e, ( i f uniqueness and appropriateness c r i t e r i a are used f o r assessing o r i g i n a l i t y ) , s i n c e the f o u r t h and t h i r d approaches, i n that order, were the l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y used by the su b j e c t s . I m p l i c i t i n the d e r i v a t i o n of the F l e x i b i l i t y score, i s the assumption that the responses and ca t e g o r i e s of responses are po i n t s on a continuum. This assumption i s supported by the observation that subjects using more than one approach l e s s than f o u r , tended to use approaches adjacent to each other on the hypothesized h i e r a r c h y . G u i t a r Problem The procedures followed i n developing s c o r i n g procedures f o r the Fort Problem were a l s o used f o r the G u i t a r Problem. For the G u i t a r Problem, f i v e d i s t i n c t approaches were i d e n t i f i e d among the t o t a l l i s t of responses. Again the i n v e s t i g a t o r , teacher, and ps y c h o l o g i s t agreed on the h i e r a r c h i c a l order of the responses and approaches. The approaches, from l e a s t t o most a b s t r a c t were as f o l l o w s : (1) Increase assets by r e l y i n g on other people's g e n e r o s i t y . (2) Increase a s s e t s , or decrease u s u a l expenses, by using own i n i t i a t i v e . (.3) F i n d ways to decrease the cost of the g u i t a r . (.4) Find ways to decrease the cost of the t r i p . ( 5 ) Find ways to get both the g u i t a r and the t r i p , using only present or expected resources. Again the more a b s t r a c t approaches were the l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y used by the s u b j e c t s . The Fluency score was a r r i v e d at by a simple count of the t o t a l r e l e v a n t responses. The F l e x i b i l i t y score was a r r i v e d at by adding the scores gained by using any of the approaches. A score of one was given f o r using the f i r s t approach, ( i e . Increase assets by r e l y i n g on other people's g e n e r o s i t y ) , a score of two was given f o r using the second approach, three f o r the t h i r d , four f o r the f o u r t h , and f i v e f o r the f i f t h . ( P r o t o c o l s f o r s c o r i n g the G u i t a r Problem are in c l u d e d i n Appendix F.) As i n the Fort Problem, a score would only be given once f o r using any p a r t i c u l a r category, and consequently the highest F l e x i b i l i t y score p o s s i b l e was f i f t e e n . 21 Procedures; I n v e s t i g a t i o n of V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y For each of the two v a r i a b l e s derived from the Fort Problem, and the two v a r i a b l e s derived from the G u i t a r Problem, the f o l l o w i n g means of examining r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y were explored: (.1) I n t e r s c o r e c o r r e l a t i o n s (1) I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ( i e . i n t e r - s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y ) (3) C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h an e x i s t i n g measure of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g (4) C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t (5) C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h a reading achievement t e s t The purpose of these t e s t s was to provide p r e l i m i n a r y evidence concerning the u s e a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the newly-derived v a r i a b l e . Instruments Two instruments r e l a t e d to the c o g n i t i v e components of c r e a t i v e t a l e n t , and one achievement t e s t were administered to a l l s u b j e c t s . The instruments thus employed were: (I) The Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking - Verbal Form A and F i g u r a l Form A. These instruments are considered by Torrance (1972) to assess c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g a b i l i t i e s which are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to c r e a t i v e t a l e n t . There i s some evidence f o r the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of these t e s t s as summarized and reviewed i n Torrance Tests: T e c h n i c a l Manual (1966). (_2) The Lorge Thorndike Verbal and the Lorge Thorndike Non-v e r b a l Tests of I n t e l l i g e n c e . An i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t was included s i n c e those high on divergent production t e s t s have a high 22 p r o b a b i l i t y of being above average on IQ ( G u i l f o r d , 1967 a ) . (.3) The Gates-MacGinitie Test of Reading S k i l l s . This t e s t of reading achievement was s e l e c t e d to provide an index of academic achievement which has f r e q u e n t l y been as s o c i a t e d w i t h c r e a t i v e t a l e n t (Blank 1975). S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures A f t e r the four s c o r i n g dimensions had been developed f o r the Fort Problem and the G u i t a r Problem, the data were examined using the f o l l o w i n g s t a t i s t i c s . (For a l l s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s , the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was accepted as s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis.) Cl) I n t e r - r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t i e s . The f i r s t t e s t was to e s t a b l i s h s a t i s f a c t o r y i n t e r ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s . Raters were t r a i n e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r , and were given samples of h y p o t h e t i c a l responses u n t i l they were f a m i l i a r w i t h the s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a . A sample of f i v e t e s t s was randomly s e l e c t e d and then scored by each of the three r a t e r s . The three r a t e r s were the i n v e s t i g a t o r , and two of the examiners. Each of the three r a t e r s a r r i v e d at i d e n t i c a l scores f o r each of the f i v e t e s t s . The i d e n t i c a l scores were a r r i v e d at i n the same way by each r a t e r . I n other words, each of the three r a t e r s agreed upon the a p p r o a c h - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of each of the responses. Because the method of s c o r i n g was an o b j e c t i v e one, (simple counting and assignment of the responses to c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , independent c a t e g o r i e s ) , i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y 23 c o e f f i c i e n t s were not c a l c u l a t e d because i t i s simpler and more meaningful to report the number and s i z e s of the e r r o r s than to report a s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t ( E b e l , 1972). I t was observed that no s c o r i n g e r r o r s were made. C2) I n t e r - V a r i a b l e C o r r e l a t i o n s . The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the two v a r i a b l e s derived from the F o r t Problem and the two v a r i a b l e s derived from the G u i t a r Problem were a l s o computed. (3) C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h E x t e r n a l C r i t e r i a . Next, c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between each of the four newly-developed v a r i a b l e s and each of the e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y c r i t e r i a (the c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g t e s t s , the i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , and the reading achievement t e s t ) . Summary In t h i s chapter, the development of the two-item t e s t SYOPT, (the two items being the Fort Problem and the G u i t a r Problem) were described, Procedures followed i n the development of s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r the two items were a l s o d e s c r i b e d , as w e l l as procedures f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the four new v a r i a b l e s . 24 CHAPTER IV RESULTS In t h i s chapter, the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s described i n Chapter I I w i l l be presented. R e l i a b i l i t y Tests The r e l i a b i l i t y of the four new v a r i a b l e s was considered i n two ways: i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , and inter-problem r e l i a b i l i t y . The t e s t i n g schedule d i d not make p o s s i b l e c o l l e c t i o n . o f data f o r determination of t e s t - r e t e s t or a l t e r n a t e form r e l i a b i l i t i e s . I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y Three r a t e r s , the i n v e s t i g a t o r and two examiners, independently a r r i v e d at i d e n t i c a l scores f o r each of f i v e randomly s e l e c t e d t e s t s . Inter-Problem R e l i a b i l i t y The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two v a r i a b l e s d e r i v e d from the Fort Problem, and between the two scores derived from the Guitar Problem are presented i n Table 1, as w e l l as the c o r r e l a t i o n s between both sets of v a r i a b l e s . "Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r a l l experimental v a r i a b l e s are presented i n Appendix A. 25 TABLE 1 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG NEW VARIABLES Fort Problem G u i t a r Problem CD (.2) (3) (4) F l e x i b i l i t y Fluency F l e x i b i l i t y Fluency (1) 61** 47** 41** (2) 48** 75** (3) 59** C4) 1. A l l decimal p o i n t s omitted. ** = p< .01 The Fluency and F l e x i b i l i t y scores f o r the Fort Problem and the Fluency and F l e x i b i l i t y scores f o r the G u i t a r Problem were a l l p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h E x t e r n a l C r i t e r i a Summarized i n Table 2 are the c o r r e l a t i o n s of each of the four new v a r i a b l e s w i t h each of 9 e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i a ( i n c l u d i n g those measures y i e l d e d by the Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking, Verbal Form A and F i g u r a l Form A, the Lorge Thorndike Verbal and NonVerbal t e s t s of IQ and the Gates-MacGinitie reading achievement t e s t ) . 26 TABLE 2 CORRELATIONS OF FOUR NEWLY-DEVELOPED VARIABLES WITH 9 SELECTED EXTERNAL CREATIVITY CRITERIA NEW VARIABLE Fort Problem G u i t a r Problem CRITERION FLEXIBILITY FLUENCY FLEXIBILITY FLUENCY Torrance Verbal-Form A Fluency F l e x i b i l i t y O r i g i n a l i t y -0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.003 0.09 -0.06 -0.07 0.04 0.005 -0.01 0.06 Torrance Figural-Form A Fluency F l e x i b i l i t y O r i g i n a l i t y E l a b o r a t i o n -0.12 -0.09 -0.13 -0.08 -0.07 -0.08 -0.04 0.14 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 0.04 -0.10 -0.12 -0.04 0.10 Lorge Thorndike Verbal Nonverbal 0.07 0.001 0.05 -0.03 0.05 -0.07 0.09 0.001 Gates-MacGinitie T o t a l 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.14 None of the four new v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h any of the e x t e r n a l c r e a t i v i t y c r i t e r i a and a l l of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were of low magnitude. 27 CHAPTER V DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s which were formulated f o r t h i s p r o j e c t were: (1) to develop a new measure i n which subjects are asked to provide m u l t i p l e s o l u t i o n s to r e a l - l i f e problems which are meaningfully r e l a t e d to t h e i r own experiences; (2) to develop s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r the new measure; and C_3) to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the new measure as i n d i c a t e d by i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h other c u r r e n t l y accepted measures of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g a p t i t u d e . In t h i s Chapter, the f i n d i n g s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to those s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be summarized. Objective One Obje c t i v e one i n v o l v e s the development of a new, r e a l i s t i c measure of complex c r e a t i v e problem-solving a b i l i t i e s . The Solve Your Own Problems Test was developed to meet t h i s o b j e c t i v e . The t e s t c o n s i s t e d of two items, the Fort Problem and the Guitar Problem. In t h i s measure, subjects were re q u i r e d to p e r s o n a l i z e the problems, and then to provide m u l t i p l e s o l u t i o n s f o r them. Objective Two Obje c t i v e Two c a l l e d f o r the development of s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r the newly-developed measure. An attempt has been made i n t h i s 28 study to develop such c r i t e r i a , and at t h i s stage of development they appear promising. Two s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a were developed f o r each of the two items, the Fort Problem and the Gu i t a r Problem. The two v a r i a b l e s assessed flu e n c y (the number of r e l e v a n t s o l u t i o n s o f f e r e d i n response to the problem), and f l e x i b i l i t y (the number of approaches taken towards the problem, and the use of the more a b s t r a c t approaches.) Obj e c t i v e Three Objective three concerned the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of f i r s t , the r e l i a b i l i t y of the new measure as i n d i c a t e d by i n t e r - s c o r e c o r r e l a t i o n s and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ; and secondly, the r e l a t i o n -ships of the new measure to s e l e c t e d e x t e r n a l measures of c r e a t i v i t y . In g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there was some support f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y of the new measure. The v a l i d i t y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s suggested that whatever the SYOPT measures, i t c e r t a i n l y i s not what the other t e s t s measure. I t can be s a i d that the new instrument provides a measure which i s independent of IQ and reading a b i l i t y , But f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s w i l l have to determine whether c r e a t i v e Behaviour i s the construct a c t u a l l y being tapped by the SYOPT. The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r - s c o r e c o r r e l a t i o n s provide support f o r the s t a b i l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y of the s c o r i n g procedures. A f t e r a b r i e f t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n , independent r a t e r s provided i d e n t i c a l scores f o r the same problems. The two v a r i a b l e s 29 from the Fort Problem and the two v a r i a b l e s from the Guitar Problem were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d w i t h themselves and w i t h each other w i t h at l e a s t moderate magnitudes. V a r i a b l e s from the Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y or even moderately w i t h the v a r i a b l e s from the Solve Your Own Problems Test. The absence of any r e l a t i o n -ship between the new measure and the Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking i s d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t because of the questionable adequacy of the norms and p o s s i b l e datedness of the p r o t o c o l s f o r s c o r i n g the Torrance Tests. Other e x t e r n a l c r e a t i v i t y c r i t e r i a w i l l have to be i d e n t i f i e d f o r f u r t h e r v a l i d a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the Lorge Thorndike IQ t e s t and SYOPT revealed an absence of any r e l a t i o n s h i p . This suggests that scores from SYOPT are independent of IQ when the group's mean IQ i s above average. This independence i s not s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e SYOPT i s designed to provide a g l o b a l assessment of c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g a b i l i t y i n complex, r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , and a complex measure of c r e a t i v i t y cannot be expected to c o r r e l a t e w i t h t e s t s of s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the new measure and the Gates-MacGinitie scores were p o s i t i v e , low and not s i g n i f i c a n t . Since the new measure made no demands on reading or w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and s i n c e only c h i l d r e n reading at grade l e v e l or above were included i n the sample, t h i s low c o r r e l a t i o n i s not incongruent. The independent of SYOPT scores from scores of other t e s t s of a b i l i t y supports the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s contention that the new measure may w e l l provide a g l o b a l assessment of c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g i n complex, r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , and that such a measure should i n c o r p o r a t e c o g n i t i v e , p e r s o n a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n a l components. Such a complex measure cannot be expected to c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h measures of s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y when subjects are r e s t r i c t e d to those reading at grade l e v e l or above. D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research An attempt has been made i n t h i s study to develop complex measures of c r e a t i v e problem-solving a b i l i t y that are meaningfully r e l a t e d to the su b j e c t s ' o r d i n a r y l i f e experiences, and i t appears that t h i s goal might be a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y . An attempt has a l s o been made to develop useable s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r t h i s k i n d of new measure and e f f o r t s toward that end appear promising. At t h i s stage of the development of the new measure there are some very c l e a r d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e research concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of such measures. U s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n could be obtained by developing more items, developing s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a f o r these items, and a d m i n i s t e r i n g them i n group-test s i t u a t i o n s w i t h t e s t - r e t e s t and/or a l t e r n a t e form schedules, Fur t h e r , i t would prove e s p e c i a l l y v a l u a b l e to conduct v a l i d i t y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o r the new measure i n classrooms p a r t i c i -p a t i n g i n c r e a t i v e problem-solving programs w i t h teacher e s p e c i a l l y t r a i n e d to i d e n t i f y the behaviour that the SYOPT i s expected to p r e d i c t 31 Summary and Conclusions The purposes of t h i s study were to develop new v a r i a b l e s f o r assessi n g and p r e d i c t i n g c r e a t i v e problem-solving a b i l i t i e s i n complex, r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s at l a t e primary or e a r l y intermediate l e v e l , and to inve s t i g a t e ' i t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of such measures. Results of the present study suggest t h a t : 0-1 For complex, meaningful problem s i t u a t i o n s , useable s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a can be developed to provide g l o b a l measures of flu e n c y and f l e x i b i l i t y which inc o r p o r a t e the c o g n i t i v e , p e r s o n a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n a l components of c r e a t i v e behaviour. These s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a may f a c i l i t a t e quick and o b j e c t i v e s c o r i n g of s u b j e c t s ' responses. The c r i t e r i a s e l e c t e d f o r use i n t h i s study were commonly accepted measures of c r e a t i v i t y a p t i t u d e . A l l of these f a c t o r i a l l y pure measures were constructed so as to define and measure t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f a c t o r s as narrowly as p o s s i b l e . Covington ( i n press) and G u i l f o r d (.1971) have contended that no set of such instruments could be expected to provide a comprehensive assessment of c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y . Consequently, no s i n g l e instrument or set of instruments designed to measure s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s can be expected to c o r r e l a t e w i t h any g l o b a l measure of c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g then that the new g l o b a l measure developed i n t h i s study d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y or s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h the c r i t e r i a s e l e c t e d f o r use i n t h i s study. 32 I t would appear that new c r i t e r i a w i l l have to be i d e n t i f i e d for the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of any global measure of creative a b i l i t y . F i e l d v a l i d a t i o n studies involving classrooms using c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g programs appear to be the most promising prospect at the present time. Given that the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of such global measures may be yet established, experience i n c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g programs leads the i n v e s t i g a t o r to expect that: (.2) Such global measures may be useful i n assessing creative behaviour. Put to t h i s use, such measures could help to more e f f e c t i v e l y evaluate c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g programs. (3) Such global measures may be useful i n i d e n t i f y i n g the following i n d i v i d u a l s : those i n d i v i d u a l s that are ready f o r a c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g program ( i e . those i n d i v i d u a l s that demonstrate a minimal amount of fluency and/or f l e x i b i l i t y i n t r y i n g to solve problems representative of t h e i r ordinary l i f e problem s i t u a t i o n s ) ; those i n d i v i d u a l s who are i n need of educational programs u t i l i z i n g c r e a t i v e problem solving approaches (the assumption being the i n d i v i d u a l s who enjoy so l v i n g t h e i r own problems c r e a t i v e l y may learn more e f f i c i e n t l y when the subject matter to be learned i s presented i n a problem solving context); and those i n d i v i d u a l s who may stand to benefit most from c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g programs ( i e . c h i l d r e n who already demonstrate the a b i l i t y and i n c l i n a t i o n to solve t h e i r own problems c r e a t i v e l y may stand to learn more than t h e i r l e s s creative peers i n terms of creative problem solving s k i l l s and i n terms of the subject matters being dealt with when a crea t i v e problem solving approach i s used i n an educational program. 34 REFERENCES Asher, J.W., Feldhusen, J.F., Gruen, G.E., Kane, R.B., McDaniel, E.D., Stevens, M.I., Towler, J . , and Wheatley, C. Development of new measures of c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n elementary school c h i l d r e n . (Phase I) L a f a y e t t e : Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. F i n a l r e p o r t of contract OEC - 0 - 70 - 4952. Blank, S. The g i f t e d and c r e a t i v e c h i l d - the problem of p r e d i c t i o n . J o u r n a l of the P r o v i n c i a l Intermediate Teachers' A s s o c i a t i o n , 1975 15 ( 3 ) , 31-33. Covington, M.V. New d i r e c t i o n s i n the a p p r a i s a l of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . I n : T r e f f i n g e r , D.J. (ed.) Readings on c r e a t i v i t y i n education. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , i n press. Covington, M.V. and C r u t c h f i e l d , R.S. F a c i l i t a t i o n of c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g . Programmed I n s t r u c t i o n , 1965, 4 (10), 3-5. Covington, M.V., C r u t c h f i e l d , R.S. and Davies, L.B. The Productive  Thinking Program. Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l , 1972. D e l i a s , M. E f f e c t s of c r e a t i v i t y t r a i n i n g , defensiveness, and i n t e l l i g e n c e on divergent t h i n k i n g . Eastern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y . Y p s i l a n t i Feb 71 26p. D e l i a s , M. and Gaier, E.L. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r e a t i v i t y : the i n d i v i d u a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73, 55-63. E b e l , R.L. E s s e n t i a l s of Edu c a t i o n a l Measurement. P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey 1972. G u i l f o r d , J.P. Some misconceptions regarding measurement of c r e a t i v e t a l e n t s . J o u r n a l of C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 19.7.1, 5, 77-87. G u i l f o r d , J.P. C r e a t i v i t y : r e t r o s p e c t and prospect. J o u r n a l of  Cr e a t i v e Behaviour, 1970, 4, 149-168. G u i l f o r d , J.P. C r e a t i v i t y : yesterday, today and tomorrow. J o u r n a l of  Cr e a t i v e Behaviour, 1967, 1, 13-14, (b) G u i l f o r d , J.P. The Nature of Human I n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1967. (a) G u i l f o r d , J.P., M e r r i f i e l d , P.R., Christenson, P.R., and F r i c k , J.W. The r o l e of i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c t o r s i n problem s o l v i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1962, 76, (10), wh. 529. 35 M i l e s , D.T. Development of a t e s t f o r an experimental research program i n c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g . Carbondale, I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , F i n a l Report of P r o j e c t BR-7-E-037, USOB Grant OFG-3-7-7-700037-2940, 1967. Myers, R.E. and Torrance, E.P. I n v i t a t i o n s to Thinking and Doing. Lexington, MA: Ginn, 1965. (a) Myers, R.E. and Torrance, E.P. Can You Imagine? Lexington, MA: Ginn 1965. (a) Myers, R.E. and Torrance, E.P. I n v i t a t i o n s to Thinking and W r i t i n g  C r e a t i v e l y . Lexington, MA: Ginn, 1965. (b) Myers, R.E. and Torrance, E.P. For Those Who Wonder. Lexington, MA: Ginn, 1966. (b) Myers, R.E. and Torrance, E.P. P l o t s , Puzzles and P l o y s . Lexington, MA: Ginn,-1966. (b) O l t o n , R.M. A s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l program f o r developing productive t h i n k i n g s k i l l s i n f i f t h - and sixth-grade c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l  of C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 1969, 3, 16-25. Osborn, A.F. A p p l i e d Imagination. (3rd Ed.) NYC: S c r i b n e r , 1963. Parnes, S.J. Methods and E d u c a t i o n a l programs f o r s t i m u l a t i n g c r e a t i v i t y : A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l i s t . J o u r n a l of C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 1967, 2, 71-75. (a) Parnes, S.J. C r e a t i v e Behaviour Guidebook. NYC: S c r i b n e r , 1967. (b) Parnes, S.J. and Meadow, A. E f f e c t s of "brainstorming" i n s t r u c t i o n s on c r e a t i v e problem s o l v i n g i n t r a i n e d and untrained s u b j e c t s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1959, 50, 171-176. Parnes, S.J. and T r e f f i n g e r , D.J. Development of new c r i t e r i a f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of c r e a t i v e s t u d i e s programs. B u f f a l o , New York: State U n i v e r s i t y College at B u f f a l o , Research Report BR-2-B-019 Grant CEG-2-2-2B019, 1973. Rosenblum, N.D. and others. The e f f e c t s of need f o r approval and general a n x i e t y on divergent t h i n k i n g scores. Am. Ed. Research Assoc.Wash., D.C. Purdue Univ., L a f a y e t t e , Ind. 2 Mar 70, 14p Torrance, E.P. Can we teach c h i l d r e n to t h i n k c r e a t i v e l y ? J o u r n a l of  C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 1972, 6 ( 2 ) , 114-143. 36 Torrance, E,P. Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking. P r i n c e t o n : Personnel Press, 1966. Torrance, E.P. Torrance Tests: T e c h n i c a l Manual. Personnel Press, Inc., P r i n c e t o n , New Jersey, 1966. T r e f f i n g e r , D.J. and Poggio, J.P. Needed research on the measurement of c r e a t i v i t y . J o u r n a l of C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 1972, 6, 253-267. T r e f f i n g e r , D.J., R e n z u l l i , J.S. and Feldhusen, J.P. Problems i n the assessment of c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g . J o u r n a l of C r e a t i v e Behaviour, 1971, 5, 104-112. T r e f f i n g e r , D.J. S o l v i n g Problems #1 and #2 mimeographed t e s t used w i t h 5th and 6th graders. Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. APPENDIX A TABLE 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES VARIABLE X Torrance Tests of C r e a t i v e Thinking Verbal Form A ( 8 8 ) 1 Fluency 43.28 F l e x i b i l i t y 25.04 O r i g i n a l i t y 11.54 F i g u r a l Form A (.89) Fluency 21.90 F l e x i b i l i t y 17.03 O r i g i n a l i t y 28.22 E l a b o r a t i o n 84.01 Lorge Thorndike (97) Verbal 109.91 Nonverbal 107.61 Gates-MacGinit i e (.88) T o t a l 81.65 Solve Your Own Problem Test (98) Fort Problem F l e x i b i l i t y 3.46 Fluency 4.85 Gui t a r Problem F l e x i b i l i t y 2.54 Fluency 2.41 N = number i n brackets 38 APPENDIX B "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM" QUESTIONNAIRE S o m e f k i n a J wan t jo do 3 9 po rents dn^i llkp. Piny n o i s o , ;  o 0 44 APPENDIX G SOLVE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS TEST 47 48 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE SYOPT Greet subject by name. Introduce s e l f . State purpose of meeting as f o l l o w s : "I'm going to give you some problems that I t h i n k people your age sometimes have to s o l v e . I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n how many d i f f e r e n t ways you can t h i n k of to s o l v e these problems, and I ' l l be w r i t i n g down the ideas you give me. F i r s t w e ' l l do a p r a c t i c e one and I won't bother w r i t i n g t h i s one down. This i s j u s t to make sure that you understand how to do these problems." Show sample to subject. " I ' d l i k e you to pretend that you are the person i n the p i c t u r e . This person wants to go f o r a boat r i d e but there's a hole i n the boat. T e l l me a l l the d i f f e r e n t things that you can t h i n k of to do about that problem." ( I f subject i n s i s t s that he/she has no i d e a s , prompt as f o l l o w s : " W e l l , do you t h i n k you could f i n d a way to f i x i t ? " I f answer i s 'yes', ask how, i f answer i s 'no' ask: "Do you t h i n k you could f i n d anyone to help you f i x i t ? " ) I f subject stops a f t e r g i v i n g one i d e a , say: "That's a good i d e a . Now pretend that that doesn't work and t e l l me what other things you could do i n s t e a d . " Acknowledge each response encouragingly u n t i l subject i n d i c a t e s that he/she has no f u r t h e r ideas. Then say: 49 "Those were r e a l l y good ideas. Thank you." "Now l e t ' s t r y another one and t h i s time I ' l l w r i t e down your i d e a s . " 6. Show p i c t u r e Cf) or p i c t u r e (g). "This time pretend that you want to ( f ) b u i l d a f o r t or (g) get a g u i t a r but you can't because (f) you don't have any good o r (g) you want to save your money to spend on your summer v a c a t i o n w i t h your f a m i l y . T e l l me a l l the d i f f e r e n t things you can t h i n k of to do about that problem." Acknowledge responses encouragingly w h i l e w r i t i n g them down u n t i l he/she i n d i c a t e s that he/she has no f u r t h e r ideas. Then say: "Those were r e a l l y good ideas. Thank you. Now l e t ' s do j u s t one more." Go back to 6. and do the second problem. Thank subject when f i n i s h e d . 50 APPENDIX E PROTOCOLS FOR SCORING THE FORT PROBLEM Approach 1: Get wood by r e l y i n g on other people's g e n e r o s i t y . Ask people (parents, neighbours, etc.) f o r wood. (maximum flu e n c y score = 3) Ask people (parents, s i b l i n g s or others) t o buy wood or f o r money to buy wood. (maximum fluency score = 2) Borrow wood. Approach 2: Get wood by using own i n i t i a t i v e . Ask people (parents, neighbours or others) i f they have any o l d f u r n i t u r e , doors, steps and the l i k e that you can have to take apart and use f o r the f o r t . (maximum flu e n c y score = 5) Rent wood. Buy wood. Look f o r wood at places such as: s a w m i l l , c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s , around the house and neighbourhood, f i e l d s , mountains, f o r e s t , l a k e , r i v e r . Chop down t r e e s . Cut branches or s t r i p bark o f f t r e e s , or o l d l o g s . Find o l d broken f u r n i t u r e , fences, gocarts, boxes, cages, f o r t s and take them apart. Use handles from hockey s t i c k s , wooden di s h e s , or wooden toys. Use s t i c k s covered w i t h pine or leaves. Trade i n s t u f f to buy wood. S e l l b i k e to buy wood. Avoid other expenses (candies, movies, etc.) to save money f o r wood. Borrow wood i n exchange f o r v i s i t i n g r i g h t s to f o r t . Don't use wood f o r other p r o j e c t s . 51 Approach 3: Use m a t e r i a l s other than wood. Use other m a t e r i a l s such as the f o l l o w i n g : b r i c k s cement blocks blanket or m a t e r i a l w i t h t a b l e or rope p l a s t i c and poles g l a s s rocks grass d i r t corn ( i n a corn f i e l d ) sheet metal f i b r e g l a s s p o l y s t y r i n e t i l e s snow t h i c k w i r e and cement cardboard painted w i t h enamel p a i n t d r i e d out deerskin paper mache pip e s , mud and p l a s t e r o l d s t u f f from a dump Approach 4: Use other ready-made a v a i l a b l e quarters as a f o r t . Use other s u i t a b l e places such as the f o l l o w i n g : bedroom or c e l l a r someone e l s e ' s neglected f o r t the area under the porch tent o l d chicken pen hollow t r e e a b i g wagon turned upside down o l d shack cave o l d wheelless van from junkyard I r r e l e v a n t responses No score i s given f o r responses that i n d i c a t e an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to t r y to cope w i t h the problem i n a p o s i t i v e manner. T y p i c a l i r r e l e v a n t responses are: Give up. Don't need to b u i l d a f o r t . Do something e l s e . 52 APPENDIX F PROTOCOLS FOR SCORING THE GUITAR PROBLEM Approach 1: Increase assets by r e l y i n g on other people's generosity. Borrow money from parents, f r i e n d s or others. (maximum fluency score = 3) Ask f o r money from parents, other r e l a t i v e s or f r i e n d s , (maximum flu e n c y = 2) Use money found by Mom i n the washing machine. Ask a f r i e n d to buy the g u i t a r Approach 2: Increase assets or reduce usual expenses by using own  i n i t i a t i v e . Get a job such as b a b y s i t t i n g , d e l i v e r i n g g r o c e r i e s and the l i k e . S e l l t h i n g s such as your b i c y c l e , books and the l i k e . Try and f i n d money at places such as the f a i r , and hockey arena. Try to win money i n contests or poker games. Cut down on usual expenses such as movies and candy. Approach 3; Decrease the cost of the g u i t a r . Make a g u i t a r . F i x a broken g u i t a r . Get a d i f f e r e n t , l e s s expensive instrument. Trade something f o r a g u i t a r . Get i t cheaper by: buying i t on s a l e ; asking f o r a discount; r e n t i n g a g u i t a r Get a g u i t a r f r e e by: asking parents to buy one f o r the whole f a m i l y ; u s i n g a f r i e n d ' s or r e l a t i v e ' s g u i t a r ; j o i n i n g a band and using t h e i r s 53 Approach 4: Decrease the cost of the t r i p . Take a s h o r t e r cheaper t r i p . Use a c a r , t r a i n , or boat i n s t e a d of a plane. Approach 5: Get both the g u i t a r and the t r i p using only present or  expected resources. S e l l what you buy on the t r i p when you get back and then buy the g u i t a r . During the v a c a t i o n buy a g u i t a r somewhere e l s e where they are cheaper., I r r e l e v a n t responses No scores are given f o r responses that i n d i c a t e : u n w i l l i n g n e s s or i n a b i l i t y to comprehend or aim f o r apparently c o n f l i c t i n g goals ( i e . both the g u i t a r and the t r i p ) ; r e s o r t i n g to immoral or i l l e g a l means of ach i e v i n g the g o a l s ; or sheer fantasy. T y p i c a l i r r e l e v a n t responses are: Forget about the g u i t a r . Decide what you r e a l l y want most. Pretend you've hurt y o u r s e l f so that you don't have to go on the t r i p . Rob someone. Magic a g u i t a r . Find some tr e a s u r e . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055682/manifest

Comment

Related Items