A New Measurement of Scientific Creativity: The Study of its Psychometric Properties

  • María-Rosario Bermejo Universidad de Murcia
  • María-José Ruiz-Melero Universidad de Murcia
  • Javier Esparza Universidad de Murcia
  • Mercedes Ferrando Universidad de Murcia
  • Rosa Pons Universidad de Murcia
Keywords: Gifted, talented, scientific creativity, creative abilities


The purpose of this paper is to study the psychometric proprieties of a new test aimed to measure scientific creativity, the Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT, Sak & Ayas, 2011). The test has been validated in different Turkish samples, showing an adequate reliability (α = .87, Ayas & Sak, 2014). The test is composed of five tasks that measure scientific creativity in different areas of knowledge: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Ecology and an interdisciplinary task. For each task, a Creative Quotient (CQ) is calculated as a combination of Fluency (number of valid answers) and Flexibility (different approaches in the solution). The test also allows us to differentiate three scientific-creative thinking processes (hypothesis generation, hypothesis evaluation and evidence verification). 344 students from Compulsory Secondary Education took part in this study. The results point out a good reliability (α = .705) and an adequate inter-rater agreement (ranging from average ICC .80 to .98). In addition, the unifactorial structure of the test was verified using CFA, which agree with the authors’ previous results (Ayas & Sak, 2014; Sak & Ayas, 2013), even when a structure of three creative process can be considered.


Albert, R. S. (1996). Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past puberty into the real world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1996(72), 43-56.

Arbuckle, J.L. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 21 User's Guide. IBM

Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the Creative Scientific Ability Test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195-205.

Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177.

Baer, J. (1999). Domains of creativity. En M. Runco, & S. Pritzker, (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 591-596). New York: Academic Press.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Nueva York: The Guilford Press.

Castelló, A., & Batlle, C. (1998). Aspectos teóricos e instrumentales en la identificación del alumnado superdotado y talentoso. Propuesta de un protocolo. FAISCA, 6, 26-66.

Cropley, A. J. (2005). Creativity and problem-solving: Implications for classroom assessment. British Psychological Society.

Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2008). Elements of a universal aesthetic of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 155.

Dubé, J. E. (2008). Evaluación del acuerdo interjueces en investigación clínica breve introducción a la confiabilidad interjueces. Revista argentina de clínica psicológica, 17, 75-80.

Dunbar, K. (1999). Science. En M.A. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. II) (pp. 525-531). New York: Elsevier.

Duschl, R. A. (1997). Renovar la enseñanza de las ciencias: importancia de las teorías y su desarrollo. Madrid: Narcea.

Einstein, A. & Infield, L. (1938). The Evolution of Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Esparza, J., Ferrando, M., Ferrándiz, C., & Prieto, M.D. (2015). Índice de Creatividad Científica (IC): Originalidad y Calidad. I Jornadas Internacionales de Doctorado, Universidad de Murcia. Comunicación Oral.

Esparza, J., Ferrando, M., Ferrándiz, C., & Prieto, M.D. (2015). Índice de Creatividad Científica (IC): Originalidad y Calidad. I Jornadas Internacionales de Doctorado, Universidad de Murcia. Comunicación Oral.

Esparza, J., Ruiz, M.J., Ferrando, M., & Sainz, M. (2015). Creatividad científica y alta habilidad: diferencias de género y nivel educativo. Aula. Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca, 21, 49-62.

Frederiksen, N., & Ward, W. C. (1978). Measures for the study of creativity in scientific problem-solving. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(1), 1-24.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Haller, C. S., Courvoisier, D. S., & Cropley, D. H. (2011). Perhaps there is accounting for taste: Evaluating the creativity of products. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 99-109.

Han, K. S. (2003). Domain Specificity of Creativity in Young Children: How Quantitative and Qualitative Data Support It. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 117-142.

Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.) (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence S. Erlbaum Publishers.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. En M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. I) (pp. 347-359). New York: Elsevier.

Hu, W., &Adey, P. (2002).A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.

Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy Jr, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological methods, 14(1), 6.

Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.

Lin, C., Hu, W., Adey, P., & Shen, J. (2003). The influence of CASE on scientific creativity. Research in Science Education, 33, 143–162.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 289-332). London: Academic Press.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484-495.

Mcmann, G.M., & Barnett, D.W.(1994). Structural analysis of correlated factors: Lessons from the verbal-performance dichotomy of the Wechsler scales. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 161-197.

OCDE (2006). El programa PISA de la OCDE ¿Qué es y para qué sirve?. París: OCDE. Recuperado en http://www.oecd.org/pisa/39730818.pdf (última visita 2015.03.05).

Perkins, D. N. (2000/2003). Archimedes' bathtub: The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. New York: Norton & Company. Trad. Castellano, La bañera de Arquímedes y otras historias del descubrimiento científico: el arte del pensamiento creativo. Barcelona: Paidós.

Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Ruiz, M. J., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., Prieto, M. D., & Sainz, M. (2014). Inteligencia y Pensamiento Científico-Creativo: Su convergencia en la explicación del rendimiento académico de los alumnos. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12(2), 283-302.

Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537-546

Sak, U. (2010). Assessment of creativity: Focus on math and science. In Paper presented at the 12th ECHA Conference Paris, France.

Sak, U. & Ayas (2011). C-SAT Manual. Unpublished Manuscript.

Sak, U., & Ayas, M. B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 315-328.

Sak, U., Turkan, Y., Sengil, S., Akar, A., Demirel, S., & Gucyeter, S. (2009). Matematiksel Yetenek Testi (MYT)’nin gelişimi ve psikometrik özellikleri (Development and psychometric properties of the Test of Mathematical Talent). Paper presented at the 2nd National Conference on Talented Children, Eskisehir, Turkey.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 420-428.

Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation and selective retention: Multiple-variant definition and blind-sighted integration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 222-228.

Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Bossomaier, T., & Pallier, G. (2004). The creativity quotient: an objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 415-419.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1999). Insight. En M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker, (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity (vol. II) (pp. 57-69). New York: Elsevier.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995/1997). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press. Trad. Castellano, La creatividad en una cultura conformista: un desafío a las masas. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Beaconville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.

Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible Reasoning - a Hypothesis About Hypotheses. Child Development, 51(1), 1-10.

Weiping, H. & Philip, A. (2002).'A scientific creativity test for secondary school students'. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389 – 403.

Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Case Studies of Genius: Ordinary Thinking, Extraordinary Outcomes. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Genius (pp. 139-165). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.

How to Cite
Bermejo, M.-R., Ruiz-Melero, M.-J., Esparza, J., Ferrando, M., & Pons, R. (2016). A New Measurement of Scientific Creativity: The Study of its Psychometric Properties. Anales De Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 32(3), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259411
Monographic theme: High Ability (giftedness and talent)