Psychometric Evaluation of an Alternate Scoring for the Remote Associates Test

被引:9
|
作者
Beisemann, Marie [1 ]
Forthmann, Boris [1 ]
Buerkner, Paul-Christian [1 ]
Holling, Heinz [1 ]
机构
[1] Westfalische Wilhelms Univ Munster, Munster, Germany
关键词
Remote Associates Test; Latent Semantic Analysis; compound RAT; convergent thinking; creative thinking; SEMANTIC SEARCH; CREATIVITY; COHERENCE; THINKING; PUZZLES;
D O I
10.1002/jocb.394
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
The Remote Associates Test (RAT; Mednick, 1962; Mednick & Mednick, 1967) is a commonly employed test of creative convergent thinking. The RAT is scored with a dichotomous scoring, scoring correct answers as 1 and all other answers as 0. Based on recent research into the information processing underlying RAT performance, we argued that the dichotomous scoring may lead to a loss of potentially relevant information. Thus, we proposed an alternate scoring based on semantic similarity between the answer given by the participant and the correct solution using Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA; Landauer & Dumais, 1997). We evaluate the psychometric properties of the alternate LSA scoring and found evidence of construct validity for the LSA scoring which was comparable to findings for the standard scoring, but not better as we would have expected. Thus, our expectations that LSA-based scoring of the RAT counteracts potential information loss were not met. However, LSA based scorings appear to be a promising alternative for hardly solvable RAT items. We conducted additional analyses comparing different RAT item types with regard to their validity as well as evaluating the information uniquely contained in the LSA scoring. Implications of all finding for existing research using RAT items are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:751 / 766
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] What determines creative association? Revealing two factors which separately influence the creative process when solving the Remote Associates Test
    Olteteanu, Ana-Maria
    Schultheis, Holger
    JOURNAL OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR, 2019, 53 (03) : 389 - 395
  • [32] Computationally constructing a repository of compound remote associates test items in American English with comRAT-G
    Ana-Maria Olteţeanu
    Holger Schultheis
    Jonathan B. Dyer
    Behavior Research Methods, 2018, 50 : 1971 - 1980
  • [33] Validation of the Italian Remote Associate Test
    Salvi, Carola
    Costantini, Giulio
    Pace, Adriana
    Palmiero, Massimiliano
    JOURNAL OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR, 2020, 54 (01) : 62 - 74
  • [34] Convergent thinking and traumatic brain injury: an investigation of performance on the remote associate test
    Rigon, Arianna
    Reber, Justin
    Patel, Nirav N.
    Duff, Melissa C.
    BRAIN INJURY, 2018, 32 (09) : 1110 - 1114
  • [35] Brain Connectivity-Based Prediction of Combining Remote Semantic Associates for Creative Thinking
    Ovando-Tellez, Marcela
    Kenett, Yoed N.
    Benedek, Mathias
    Bernard, Matthieu
    Belo, Joan
    Beranger, Benoit
    Bieth, Theophile
    Volle, Emmanuelle
    CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2023, 35 (03) : 522 - 546
  • [36] Creativity related cortex activity in the remote associates task
    Razumnikova, Olga M.
    BRAIN RESEARCH BULLETIN, 2007, 73 (1-3) : 96 - 102
  • [37] Determinants of creative thinking: the effect of task characteristics in solving remote associate test problems
    Sio, Ut Na
    Kotovsky, Kenneth
    Cagan, Jonathan
    THINKING & REASONING, 2022, 28 (02) : 163 - 192
  • [38] comRAT-C: A computational compound Remote Associates Test solver based on language data and its comparison to human performance
    Olteteanu, Ana-Maria
    Falomir, Zoe
    PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS, 2015, 67 : 81 - 90
  • [39] Development and validity of a Dutch version of the Remote Associates Task: An item-response theory approach
    Chermahini, Soghra Akbari
    Hickendorff, Marian
    Hommel, Bernhard
    THINKING SKILLS AND CREATIVITY, 2012, 7 (03) : 177 - 186
  • [40] Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test
    Thomson, Keela S.
    Oppenheimer, Daniel M.
    JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING, 2016, 11 (01): : 99 - 113