Abstract 摘要
The Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS) is a 30-item scale based on a core of four criteria: Relevance & Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Genesis. The CSDS offers potential for the consensual assessment of functional product creativity. This article describes an empirical study in which non-expert judges rated a series of mousetrap designs using the 30-item CSDS. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a simple structure that corresponded closely to the a priori theoretical model of functional creativity, resulting in a revised 24-item CSDS. Non-expert judges were able to use the scale with a high degree of reliability and internal consistency. The revised CSDS paves the way for further research into the use of non-expert judges as a possible replacement for more costly, harder-to-obtain experts when measuring product creativity using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).
创造性解决方案诊断量表（CSDS）是一个包含 30 个项目的量表，基于四个核心标准：相关性与有效性、新颖性、优雅性和生成性。CSDS 为功能性产品创造力的共识评估提供了潜力。本文描述了一项实证研究，其中非专家评审使用 30 项 CSDS 对一系列捕鼠器设计进行了评分。确认性因素分析揭示了一个简单结构，与功能性创造力的理论模型密切对应，最终形成了修订后的 24 项 CSDS。非专家评审能够以高度的可靠性和内部一致性使用该量表。修订后的 CSDS 为进一步研究非专家评审作为可能替代更昂贵、难以获得的专家在使用共识评估技术（CAT）测量产品创造力时的应用铺平了道路。
Introduction 介绍
There is widespread agreement in the literature that creativity requires the ability to produce outcomes that are novel, high quality, and appropriate to the task (e.g., Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002). Cropley and Cropley (2010a) expressed this concept as the generation of effective novelty. These outcomes may include products, services, ideas, processes, or procedures (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Many have argued that creativity drives the broader innovation process of modern economies (Florida, 2002). It does this both by underpinning the individual and organizational skills needed to adapt to the pace and nature of change in the modern world (Carnevale, Gainer, & Meltzer, 1990), and by acting as a key ingredient in the process of generating new business opportunities, whether in the form of a product, process, system, or service.
文献中普遍认为，创造力需要产生新颖、高质量且适合任务的结果的能力（例如，Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002）。Cropley 和 Cropley（2010a）将这一概念表述为有效新颖性的生成。这些结果可能包括产品、服务、想法、过程或程序（Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993）。许多人认为，创造力推动了现代经济更广泛的创新过程（Florida, 2002）。它通过支撑个体和组织所需的技能，以适应现代世界变化的速度和性质（Carnevale, Gainer, & Meltzer, 1990），并作为生成新商业机会过程中的关键成分，无论是以产品、过程、系统还是服务的形式。
Puccio and Cabra (2010), in discussing the role that both individual and organizational creativity play in driving innovation, also draw attention to the fact that “innovation comes about as the result of the interaction among people, the processes they engage in, and the environment in which they work” (p. 149). However, it is the end result, the way that these variables interact to form a product, which is critical (Puccio, Murdock, & Mance, 2007). Given the importance of creative products to the success of the innovation system, it therefore is axiomatic that we understand how to characterize outcomes that are novel, high quality, and task appropriate (Sternberg et al., 2002). The very nature of product creativity, as a possible resource organizations can use to compete, emphasizes the need for its measurement (Horn & Salvendy, 2009). The creative product is not simply the conclusion of a process of creativity; it is the embodiment of that creativity.
Puccio 和 Cabra（2010）在讨论个人和组织创造力在推动创新中所发挥的作用时，也指出“创新是人们之间、他们参与的过程以及他们工作的环境相互作用的结果”（第 149 页）。然而，关键在于最终结果，即这些变量相互作用形成产品的方式（Puccio, Murdock, & Mance，2007）。鉴于创造性产品对创新系统成功的重要性，因此我们理解如何表征新颖、高质量和适合任务的结果是显而易见的（Sternberg 等，2002）。产品创造力的本质，作为组织可以用来竞争的可能资源，强调了对其进行测量的必要性（Horn & Salvendy，2009）。创造性产品不仅仅是创造过程的结论；它是这种创造力的体现。
Measuring Product Creativity
测量产品创意
There have been extensive studies on how to measure a creative product in its broadest sense. O'Quin and Besemer (1999) describe three common approaches used to measure product creativity: Indirect measurement, global judgment, and criterion-based measurement. These approaches have been developed both in a domain-general and a domain-specific context. Some of the possible solutions include the use of expert raters (Amabile, 1996), divergent thinking-based scoring of creative products for originality or fluency (Reiter-Palmon, Illies Young, Kobe, Buboltz, & Nimps, 2009), or its historical impact (Simonton, 2009a).
关于如何在最广泛的意义上衡量创造性产品，已经进行了广泛的研究。O'Quin 和 Besemer (1999) 描述了三种常用的衡量产品创造性的方法：间接测量、全球判断和基于标准的测量。这些方法在领域通用和领域特定的背景下都得到了发展。一些可能的解决方案包括使用专家评审（Amabile, 1996）、基于发散性思维的创造性产品原创性或流畅性的评分（Reiter-Palmon, Illies Young, Kobe, Buboltz, & Nimps, 2009），或其历史影响（Simonton, 2009a）。
Horn and Salvendy (2006) offer a detailed comparison of specific product creativity measurement tools, including rating scales and subjective assessments. The former include Besemer and O'Quin's (1987, 1999) Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS) and Reis and Renzulli's (1991) Student Product Assessment Form, while the latter is based on Amabile's (1983) Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Horn and Salvendy (2006) also report that the rating scales have been tested in a variety of domains, including art work, cartoons, chairs, advertisements, scientific and creative writing, audio-visual products, and social studies. The CAT has been applied to stories, art, poetry, and other aesthetic products. Much of the research has been geared toward evaluating either aesthetic or organizational products. The assessment of aesthetic work (such as a painting or poem) has been extensively investigated for nearly a century (Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004; Cattell, Glascock, & Washburn, 1918; Child & Iwao, 1968). Within industrial/organizational psychology or business, assessing creative products may mean studying group creativity or the performance of teams (e.g., Shalley, 2002). There are, however, surprisingly few studies aimed at assessing the creativity of products in the sense of tangible, scientific, or technological products—that is, engineered artifacts or manufactured consumer goods. Where studies do relate to products, in the sense just described, it is primarily in connection with related concepts, such as “usability” (see, e.g., Han, Yun, Kim, & Kwahk, 2000). Looking at one such domain (mathematics), Mann (2009) argues that many of the current assessments are time consuming to score; they also tend to be separate instruments designed to measure the specific domains. As a result, most of the work on mathematical creativity assessment cannot be easily applied to related domains (such as engineering).
Horn 和 Salvendy（2006）提供了具体产品创造力测量工具的详细比较，包括评分量表和主观评估。前者包括 Besemer 和 O'Quin（1987，1999）的创造性产品语义量表（CPSS）和 Reis 和 Renzulli（1991）的学生产品评估表，而后者基于 Amabile（1983）的共识评估技术（CAT）。Horn 和 Salvendy（2006）还报告称，评分量表已在多个领域进行了测试，包括艺术作品、卡通、椅子、广告、科学和创造性写作、视听产品以及社会研究。CAT 已应用于故事、艺术、诗歌和其他美学产品。大部分研究旨在评估美学或组织产品。 对美学作品（如绘画或诗歌）的评估已经被广泛研究近一个世纪（Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004; Cattell, Glascock, & Washburn, 1918; Child & Iwao, 1968）。在工业/组织心理学或商业领域，评估创意产品可能意味着研究团队创造力或团队表现（例如，Shalley, 2002）。然而，针对有形、科学或技术产品——即工程制品或制造的消费品——的创意评估研究却出奇地少。当研究确实与产品相关时，通常是与相关概念有关，例如“可用性”（参见，例如，Han, Yun, Kim, & Kwahk, 2000）。在一个这样的领域（数学）中，Mann（2009）认为，许多当前的评估在评分上耗时较长；它们也往往是设计用来测量特定领域的独立工具。 因此，大多数关于数学创造力评估的工作无法轻易应用于相关领域（如工程）。
Simonton (2009b) argues for a hierarchy within domains, with “hard sciences” at one end of the extreme (highest), “soft sciences” in the middle, and arts and humanities at the other end (lowest). In essence, what much of the field of creativity assessment has done is to focus on the middle and lower end of Simonton's spectrum, perhaps to the neglect of the hard sciences.
Simonton (2009b) 主张在领域内存在一个层次结构，“硬科学”位于极端的一端（最高）， “软科学”位于中间，而艺术和人文学科则位于另一端（最低）。 本质上，创造力评估领域的许多工作集中在 Simonton 光谱的中间和较低端，可能忽视了硬科学。
Functional Creativity 功能创造力
Cropley (2005) as well as Cropley and Cropley (2005, 2008, 2010a) have sought to address this gap in research by focusing on novel products that serve some useful social purpose, labeling their special quality functional creativity. This is consistent with, and builds on, existing definitions of creativity, ranging from Boden's (1994) three-criterion model (novel, valuable, and surprising), through Ochse (1990), and Besemer and O'Quin's (1987) model (novelty, resolution, elaboration, and synthesis), to Sternberg and Lubart's (1999) summary of “novel (i.e., original and unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints)”. Cropley and Cropley argued that novelty seems intuitively to take precedence over usefulness in determining creativity. However, in the practical world of products, processes, systems, and services, the most important aspect of an artifact that excites admiration in the beholder is effectiveness. To take a simple example, an automobile must transport people quickly, economically, and comfortably over long distances. If it fails to satisfy requirements like these, then it lacks effectiveness and thus cannot be regarded as creative, no matter how novel it is. Einstein, however, argued that it is not difficult to find novel solutions to problems that achieve the desired effect: The difficult part is finding solutions that are elegant (see Miller, 1992). Grudin (1990) reinforced this idea when he referred to the grace of great things [our italics]. Such solutions not infrequently cause a more or less instantaneous “shock of recognition” when they occur, and provoke a “why didn't I think of that?” reaction. Indeed, an elegant solution may look so simple and obvious—after the fact—that people may underrate its creativity or denigrate it as “banal.” In addition, products that are not only useful in the situation for which they were generated but can also be applied in other apparently unrelated situations embody genesis. A product may introduce a new way of conceptualizing an area, for instance, by opening up new approaches to existing problems, or by drawing attention to the existence of previously unnoticed problems.
Cropley (2005) 以及 Cropley 和 Cropley (2005, 2008, 2010a) 试图通过关注一些具有社会用途的新产品来填补这一研究空白，将其特殊品质标记为 功能性 创造力。这与现有的创造力定义一致，并在其基础上发展，涵盖了 Boden 的 (1994) 三个标准模型（新颖、有价值和令人惊讶），通过 Ochse (1990)，以及 Besemer 和 O'Quin 的 (1987) 模型（新颖性、解决方案、详细阐述和综合），到 Sternberg 和 Lubart 的 (1999) 对“新颖（即原创和意外）和适当（即有用、适应任务约束）”的总结。Cropley 和 Cropley 认为，在确定创造力时，新颖性似乎直观上优先于有用性。 然而，在产品、过程、系统和服务的实际世界中，令观察者感到钦佩的工件最重要的方面是有效性。举个简单的例子，汽车必须能够快速、经济、舒适地运输人们，跨越长距离。如果它未能满足这些要求，那么它就缺乏有效性，因此无论多么新颖，都不能被视为创造性的。然而，爱因斯坦认为，找到能够实现预期效果的新颖解决方案并不困难：困难的部分在于找到优雅的解决方案（见米勒，1992 年）。格鲁丁（1990 年）在提到伟大事物的优雅时加强了这一观点[我们的斜体字]。这样的解决方案在出现时常常会引起或多或少瞬间的“认知震惊”，并引发“我怎么没想到这一点？”的反应。确实，优雅的解决方案在事后看起来可能如此简单和显而易见，以至于人们可能会低估其创造性或贬低其为“平庸”。此外，那些不仅在其产生的特定情况下有用，而且可以应用于其他看似无关的情况的产品体现了创生。例如，一个产品可能通过为现有问题开辟新的解决方法，或通过引起对之前未注意到的问题的关注，来引入一种新的概念化方式。
Cropley and Cropley (2005) classified creative products using the four dimensions listed above. They arranged them in a hierarchy ranging from the “routine” product (characterized by effectiveness alone) at one pole, to the “innovative” product (characterized by effectiveness, novelty, elegance, and genesis) at the other, with “original” and “elegant” products between these poles. This classification system is shown in Table 1, where a plus sign means that a property is necessary for this kind of product, a minus sign that it is not. The schematic in Table 1 can also be used to demonstrate the position of pseudo- and quasi-creativity: that is, novelty without effectiveness. The table shows that as a product moves from routine to innovative, it incorporates all the properties of products at lower levels, but adds something to them.
Cropley 和 Cropley（2005）使用上述四个维度对创意产品进行了分类。他们将这些产品按层次排列，从一端的“常规”产品（仅以有效性为特征）到另一端的“创新”产品（以有效性、新颖性、优雅性和创生性为特征），而“原创”和“优雅”产品则位于这两个极端之间。该分类系统如表1所示，其中加号表示该属性对这种产品是必要的，减号则表示不是。表1中的示意图也可以用来展示伪创造力和准创造力的位置：即新颖性没有有效性。表格显示，随着产品从常规向创新转变，它包含了较低层次产品的所有属性，但又在其基础上增加了一些东西。
表 1。 产品中的创造力水平和种类
| Criterion 标准 | Kind of Product 产品种类 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine 常规 | Original 原始 | Elegant 优雅 | Innovative 创新 | Aesthetic 美学 | |
| Effectiveness 有效性 | + | + | + | + | − |
| Novelty 新奇 | − | + | + | + | + |
| Elegance 优雅 | − | − | + | + | ? |
| Genesis 创世纪 | − | − | − | + | ? |
Routine products should not be dismissed out of hand. They may be very useful: In areas such as engineering, for example, a very large number of products perform important functions that benefit humankind and contribute to the advancement of society (i.e., they are useful), even though they are devoid of novelty. However, because they lack novelty their creativity is qualitatively different. Changes to these products, rather than representing functional creativity, may instead take the form of replication—that is, minor adaptations to existing ideas (Sternberg et al., 2002) that develop what already exists according to existing lines of thought. It is only when products move beyond repetition and effectiveness, and begin to incorporate novelty that they enter the realm of creativity.
常规产品不应被轻易否定。它们可能非常有用：例如，在工程等领域，许多产品执行重要功能，造福人类并促进社会进步（即，它们是有用的），尽管它们缺乏新颖性。然而，由于缺乏新颖性，它们的创造力在质量上是不同的。对这些产品的变化，可能并不代表功能上的创造力，而是以复制的形式出现——即对现有思想的轻微调整（Sternberg et al., 2002），根据现有的思路发展已有的东西。只有当产品超越重复和有效性，开始融入新颖性时，它们才进入创造力的领域。
The hierarchical organization of products shown in Table 1 introduces a further important principle into the discussion: Creativity is not an all-or-nothing quality of a product—there are both levels and kinds of creativity. Creativity is not something that products either have or do not have. Different products can have creativity to greater or lesser degrees, or they can display different kinds of it. Beghetto, Kaufman and Baxter (2011) give the metaphor of the all-or-nothing viewpoint as envisioning creativity as a simple light switch; in more recent years, most theorists have embraced the view of creativity more as a dimmer switch.
表格1中显示的产品的层级组织引入了一个进一步重要的原则：创造力不是产品的全有或全无的特质——创造力有层次和种类。创造力不是产品要么具备要么不具备的东西。不同的产品可以在不同程度上具备创造力，或者表现出不同种类的创造力。Beghetto、Kaufman 和 Baxter（2011）将全有或全无的观点比喻为将创造力视为一个简单的开关；近年来，大多数理论家更倾向于将创造力视为一个调光开关。
Indicators of Creativity 创造力的指标
The functional model of creativity (Cropley & Cropley, 2005) provides a number of broad properties of products that can be used to describe the level and kind of creativity they possess. The question that arises at this point is that of the observable characteristics of products that reveal the presence of these properties. We refer to such characteristics as “indicators” of creativity. Scales developed by psychologists for rating the creativity of products served as a basis for enriching the functional model of creativity. An early example is Taylor's (1975) Creative Product Inventory, which measured the dimensions: Generation, reformulation, originality, relevancy, hedonics, complexity, and condensation. More recently, Besemer and O'Quin's (1987) Creative Product Semantic Scale defined the creativity of products in terms of three dimensions: Novelty (the product is original, surprising, and germinal), Resolution (the product is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable), and Elaboration and Synthesis (the product is organic, elegant, complex, and well-crafted).
创造力的功能模型（Cropley & Cropley, 2005）提供了一些广泛的产品特性，可以用来描述它们所拥有的创造力的水平和种类。此时出现的问题是，哪些可观察的特征可以揭示这些特性的存在。我们将这些特征称为创造力的“指标”。心理学家为评估产品创造力而开发的量表为丰富创造力的功能模型提供了基础。一个早期的例子是泰勒（1975）的创造性产品清单，它测量了以下维度：生成、重构、原创性、相关性、享乐性、复杂性和凝练性。最近，贝塞默和奥奎因（1987）的创造性产品语义量表根据三个维度定义了产品的创造力：新颖性（产品是原创的、令人惊讶的和开创性的）、解决方案（产品是有价值的、合乎逻辑的、有用的和易于理解的）以及细化和综合（产品是有机的、优雅的、复杂的和精心制作的）。
Criteria such as hedonics or elegance are reminiscent of Jackson and Messick's (1965) distinction between internal criteria, such as logic, harmony among the elements of the product, pleasingness, and external criteria (i.e., is it relevant, is it useful?). The indicators suggested by Taylor and Besemer and O'Quin give greater weight to internal criteria, such as elegance, complexity, or logic. They involve a mixture of pure aesthetic, formalist, and technical properties (see Slater, 2006), whereas they vary in the level of openness or closedness they display.
诸如享乐主义或优雅等标准让人想起杰克逊和梅西克（1965 年）对内部标准（如逻辑、产品元素之间的和谐、愉悦感）与外部标准（即，是否相关，是否有用？）的区分。泰勒、贝塞默和奥奎恩提出的指标更重视内部标准，如优雅、复杂性或逻辑。它们涉及纯美学、形式主义和技术属性的混合（见斯莱特，2006 年），而且它们在表现出的开放性或封闭性程度上有所不同。
By contrast, the “propulsion model” (Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2003; Sternberg et al., 2002) turns directly to external indicators. According to them, a creative product achieves its external effect by propelling a field. They suggested a number of ways in which this can occur: These include conceptual replication (the known is transferred to a new setting), redefinition (the known is seen in a new way), forward and advanced forward incrementation (the known is extended in various ways), redirection (the known is extended in a new direction), reconstruction (new life is breathed into an approach previously abandoned), and reinitiation (thinking begins at a radically different point from the current one and takes off in a new direction). Savransky (2000) also discussed the processes through which existing knowledge leads to effective novelty in the external world: He argued that inventive solutions to problems always involve changing what already exists, and discerned a variety of ways in which this can occur, including improvement, diagnostics, synthesis, and genesis.
相比之下，“推进模型”（Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2003; Sternberg et al., 2002）直接转向外部指标。根据他们的说法，创造性产品通过推动一个领域来实现其外部效果。他们建议了多种可能的方式：包括概念复制（已知的内容转移到新的环境中）、重新定义（已知的内容以新的方式呈现）、向前和先进的向前增量（已知的内容以各种方式扩展）、重新定向（已知的内容向新的方向扩展）、重建（为之前被放弃的方法注入新的生命）和重新启动（思考从一个与当前截然不同的点开始，并朝着新的方向发展）。 萨夫兰斯基（2000）还讨论了现有知识如何在外部世界中产生有效新颖性的过程：他认为，解决问题的创造性方案总是涉及改变已经存在的事物，并辨别出多种可能发生的方式，包括改进、诊断、综合和生成。
Cropley and Cropley (2005) enriched their hierarchical, four-criterion model of functional creativity with the indicators described above to define a Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS). Table 2 shows the full CSDS.
Cropley 和 Cropley（2005）通过上述指标丰富了他们的分层四标准功能创造力模型，以定义创造性解决方案诊断量表（CSDS）。表2显示了完整的 CSDS。
表 2。完整的创意解决方案诊断量表
| Criterion of Creativity 创造力标准 | Kind of Solution 解决方案的种类 | Property of the Solution 溶液的性质 | Indicator 指示器 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance & Effectiveness 相关性与有效性 |
Routine 常规 | Solution displays knowledge of existing facts and principles and satisfies the requirement in the problem statement 解决方案展示了对现有事实和原则的知识，并满足了问题陈述中的要求 |
CORRECTNESS (the solution accurately reflects conventional knowledge and/or techniques) 正确性（该解决方案准确反映了传统知识和/或技术） |
| PERFORMANCE (the solution does what it is supposed to do) 性能（解决方案按预期工作） |
|||
| APPROPRIATENESS (the solution fits within task constraints) 适当性（解决方案符合任务限制） |
|||
| OPERABILITY (the solution is easy to use) 可操作性（该解决方案易于使用） |
|||
| SAFETY (the solution is safe to use) 安全（该解决方案安全可用） |
|||
| DURABILITY (the solution is reasonably strong) 耐用性（该解决方案相当强） |
|||
| Novelty 新奇 | Original 原始 | Problematization (solution draws attention to problems in what already exists) 问题化（解决方案引起对现有问题的关注） |
DIAGNOSIS (the solution draws attention to shortcomings in other existing solutions) 诊断（该解决方案引起了对其他现有解决方案缺陷的关注） |
| PRESCRIPTION (the solution shows how existing solutions could be improved) 处方（该解决方案展示了现有解决方案如何改进） |
|||
| PROGNOSIS (the solution helps the beholder to anticipate likely effects of changes) 预后（该解决方案帮助观察者预测变化的可能影响） |
|||
| Solution adds to existing knowledge 解决方案增加了现有知识 |
REPLICATION (the solution uses existing knowledge to generate novelty) 复制（该解决方案利用现有知识生成新颖性） |
||
| COMBINATION (the solution makes use of new mixture(s) of existing elements) 组合（该解决方案利用现有元素的新混合物） |
|||
| INCREMENTATION (the solution extends the known in an existing direction) 增量化（该解决方案在现有方向上扩展已知内容） |
|||
| Solution develops new knowledge 解决方案开发新知识 |
REDIRECTION (the solution shows how to extend the known in a new direction) 重定向（该解决方案展示了如何在新方向上扩展已知内容） |
||
| RECONSTRUCTION (the solution shows that an approach previously abandoned is still useful) 重建（该解决方案表明，之前放弃的方法仍然有用） |
|||
| REINITIATION (the solution indicates a radically new approach) 重新启动（该解决方案表明了一种根本的新方法） |
|||
| REDEFINITION (the solution helps the beholder see new and different ways of using the solution) 重新定义（该解决方案帮助观察者看到使用该解决方案的新方法和不同方式） |
|||
| GENERATION (the solution offers a fundamentally new perspective on possible solutions) 生成（该解决方案提供了对可能解决方案的根本新视角） |
|||
| Elegance 优雅 | Elegant 优雅 | Solution strikes observers as beautiful (external elegance) 解决方案给观察者留下美丽的印象（外部优雅） |
RECOGNITION (the beholder sees at once that the solution “makes sense”) 识别（观察者立刻看到解决方案“合乎逻辑”） |
| CONVINCINGNESS (the beholder sees the solution as skillfully executed, well-finished) 说服力（观察者认为解决方案执行得很熟练，完成得很好） |
|||
| PLEASINGNESS (the beholder finds the solution neat, well-done) 令人愉悦（观察者认为解决方案整洁、做得很好） |
|||
| Solution is well worked out and hangs together (internal elegance) 解决方案经过精心设计，内部结构协调一致 |
COMPLETENESS (the solution is well worked out and “rounded”) 完整性（解决方案经过充分考虑和“完善”） |
||
| GRACEFULNESS (the solution well-proportioned, nicely formed) 优雅（解决方案比例适当，形状优美） |
|||
| HARMONIOUSNESS (the elements of the solution fit together in a consistent way) 和谐性（解决方案的元素以一致的方式相互契合） |
|||
| SUSTAINABILITY (the solution is environmentally friendly) 可持续性（解决方案是环保的） |
|||
| Genesis 创世纪 | Innovative 创新 | Ideas in the solution go beyond the immediate situation 解决方案中的想法超越了当前的情况 |
FOUNDATIONALITY (the solution suggests a novel basis for further work) 基础性（该解决方案建议了进一步工作的一个新基础） |
| TRANSFERABILITY (the solution offers ideas for solving apparently unrelated problems) 可转移性（该解决方案提供了解决看似无关问题的思路） |
|||
| GERMINALITY (the solution suggests new ways of looking at existing problems) 生长性（该解决方案提出了看待现有问题的新方法） |
|||
| SEMINALITY (the solution draws attention to previously unnoticed problems) 重要性（该解决方案引起了对先前未注意到的问题的关注） |
|||
| VISION (the solution suggests new norms for judging other solutions existing or new) 愿景（该解决方案建议对现有或新解决方案进行评判的新标准） |
|||
| PATHFINDING (the solution opens up a new conceptualization of the issues) 路径寻找（该解决方案为问题提供了新的概念化） |
Recognizing Creativity 识别创造力
To serve as the basis of an instrument for measuring the creativity of products, the internal and external properties (indicators) outlined in the previous section conjointly with Table 2 would have to be recognizable to observers. The most straightforward way of checking whether people really can recognize creativity when they see it is to ask them. This idea is at the heart of the method of consensual assessment (for a summary, see Amabile, 1996). Amabile along with her colleagues has developed and refined this approach, furthermore, the CAT is now well known among creativity researchers (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008b). The method frequently involves asking judges, usually experts in the field to which the product belongs, to rate the creativity of a product.
为了作为衡量产品创造力的工具的基础，前一部分中概述的内部和外部属性（指标）以及表2必须对观察者可识别。检查人们是否真的能在看到创造力时识别它的最简单方法是询问他们。这个想法是共识评估方法的核心（摘要见 Amabile，1996）。Amabile 及其同事已经开发和完善了这种方法，此外，CAT 现在在创造力研究者中广为人知（Kaufman，Plucker，& Baer，2008b）。该方法通常涉及请评审，通常是该产品所属领域的专家，对产品的创造力进行评分。
The need for experts highlights a limitation of the Consensual Assessment Technique. It can be expensive (to obtain multiple expert raters), cumbersome (all products must be viewed separately by the experts), and time consuming (Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008a).
对专家的需求突显了共识评估技术的一个局限性。它可能成本高昂（需要获得多个专家评审），繁琐（所有产品必须由专家单独查看），并且耗时（Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008a）。
The role that expertise plays in assessing creativity is by no means settled. Besemer and O'Quin (1999), for example, demonstrated that people without special expertise were able to distinguish consistently among products (four chairs of quite different design). Reliabilities of their ratings ranged from 0.69 to 0.86 (alpha coefficients), with the majority of coefficients being in excess of 0.80. By contrast, Kaufman et al. (2008a,b) found that “non-expert raters' judgments of creativity were inconsistent (showing low inter-rater reliability) and did not match those of experts”. Lee, Lee and Young (2005) found similar problems with novice ratings. Plucker, Kaufman, Temple and Qian (2009) found, however, a degree of uncertainty in the assessment of product creativity by different categories of raters, with their results suggesting “a continuum of creative evaluation in which the distinctions between categories such as “novice”, “amateur”, and “expert” are blurry and often overlap…” This was supported by Hekkert and Van Wieringen (1996) who also found overlaps between raters with different levels of expertise. Baer (2010) discusses this issue in the context of the debate on domain specificity and creativity and questions the validity of replacing expert judges with novices, citing Chen, Himsel, Kasof, Greenberger and Dmitreiva (2006) to highlight the need for “…data showing that expert raters in a domain can be reliably replaced by novices…”
评估创造力时专业知识的作用并不是一个确定的问题。例如，Besemer 和 O'Quin（1999）证明，没有特殊专业知识的人能够在产品（四把设计截然不同的椅子）之间始终如一地区分。其评分的可靠性范围从 0.69 到 0.86（阿尔法系数），大多数系数超过 0.80。相比之下，Kaufman 等人（2008a，b）发现“非专家评审者对创造力的判断不一致（显示出低的评审者间可靠性），并且与专家的判断不匹配”。Lee、Lee 和 Young（2005）发现新手评分也存在类似问题。 Plucker, Kaufman, Temple 和 Qian (2009) 发现，不同类别的评审在产品创意评估中存在一定程度的不确定性，他们的结果表明“创意评估是一个连续体，其中‘新手’、‘业余’和‘专家’等类别之间的区别模糊且常常重叠……”这一点得到了 Hekkert 和 Van Wieringen (1996) 的支持，他们也发现不同专业水平的评审之间存在重叠。Baer（2010）在关于领域特异性和创造力的辩论中讨论了这个问题，并质疑用新手替代专家评审的有效性，引用了 Chen、Himsel、Kasof、Greenberger 和 Dmitreiva（2006）来强调“……数据表明某一领域的专家评审可以可靠地被新手替代……”的必要性
A key step in addressing the debate surrounding the role of expertise in creativity assessment is therefore to examine whether or not it is possible for different people to show a common and reliable understanding of novelty, complexity, elegance, and the like. If people can recognize creative products when they see them and can express their judgments of the level of the characteristics in a quantifiable way, without the need for special knowledge or expertise, then not only does this open up the utility of creativity measurement but it may also contribute to the wider debate regarding domain specificity and creativity.
因此，解决围绕专业知识在创造力评估中角色的辩论的一个关键步骤是检查不同的人是否能够对新颖性、复杂性、优雅等有共同且可靠的理解。如果人们能够在看到创造性产品时识别它们，并能够以可量化的方式表达他们对这些特征水平的判断，而不需要特殊的知识或专业技能，那么这不仅打开了创造力测量的实用性，也可能有助于关于领域特异性和创造力的更广泛辩论。
The Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale was developed on the basis of a theoretical framework for product creativity, namely the concept of functional creativity (Cropley & Cropley, 2005), enriched by a set of indicators drawn from the literature of product creativity. The scale has yet to be tested on a large group of raters to see if the hypothesized structure is borne out by factor analysis. The goal of this study is to look at a large number of novice raters to see the level of reliability and the factor structure of the responses.
创造性解决方案诊断量表是基于产品创造力的理论框架开发的，即功能创造力的概念（Cropley & Cropley，2005），并通过从产品创造力文献中提取的一组指标进行了丰富。该量表尚未在大规模评估者群体中进行测试，以查看假设的结构是否通过因子分析得以验证。本研究的目标是观察大量新手评估者的可靠性水平和响应的因子结构。
Method 方法
Participants 参与者
The participants who used the CSDS consisted of 203 college students from a public university in Southern California. Participants took part in the study online for extra credit. The sample included 157 participants who identified as female (77.3%), 21 who identified as male (10.3%), and a further 25 (12.3%) who chose to give no answer for this demographic. The most common age group was 18–24 years old, (58.1%) followed by 25–29 years old (13.3%). The demographic breakdown of the sample was as follows: 70 Hispanic American; 67 European American/Caucasian; 15 African American; 12 Asian American; 9 of mixed or biracial ethnicity; and 30 who chose not to identify their ethnicity.
使用 CSDS 的参与者由 203 名来自南加州一所公立大学的大学生组成。参与者在线参与研究以获得额外学分。样本中包括 157 名自我认同为女性的参与者（77.3%），21 名自我认同为男性的参与者（10.3%），以及另外 25 名（12.3%）选择不回答该人口统计问题。最常见的年龄组为 18-24 岁（58.1%），其次是 25-29 岁（13.3%）。样本的人口统计分布如下：70 名西班牙裔美国人；67 名欧洲裔美国人/白人；15 名非洲裔美国人；12 名亚裔美国人；9 名混血或双种族；以及 30 名选择不表明其种族的参与者。
Procedure 程序
Participants were directed to a website where the measures were hosted online. Participants were presented, sequentially, with an image of one of five different mousetraps of varying designs (stimuli 1–5). Images of the mousetraps were selected from Google image search to represent a diverse range of possible mousetraps (see Appendix A for descriptions). Participants were asked to rate each of the different mousetraps using the 30 items of the (CSDS, Table 2). Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from “not at all” through “somewhat” to “very much”) to indicate the degree to which the CSDS item is applied to the given mousetrap. In addition, each item was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from “not at all” through “somewhat” to “very much”) to indicate how creative, overall, each mousetrap was. Participants were asked to complete a basic demographic questionnaire, debriefed, and given extra credit when applicable for their participation.
参与者被引导到一个网站，在那里在线托管了测量工具。参与者依次看到五种不同设计的捕鼠器的图像（刺激 1-5）。捕鼠器的图像是从谷歌图片搜索中选择的，以代表各种可能的捕鼠器（见附录 A 的描述）。参与者被要求使用 30 个项目的（CSDS，表2）对每种不同的捕鼠器进行评分。每个项目使用 5 点李克特量表进行评分（从“完全不”到“有点”再到“非常”），以指示 CSDS 项目在给定捕鼠器上的适用程度。此外，每个项目还使用 5 点李克特量表进行评分（从“完全不”到“有点”再到“非常”），以指示每个捕鼠器的整体创造性。参与者被要求填写基本的人口统计问卷，进行解密，并在适用时因参与而获得额外学分。
Results 结果
Inter-Rater Reliability 评估者间可靠性
Consistency among the participants was evaluated with Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Coefficient alpha is a standard measure of internal consistency and has been used in creativity research as a measure of inter-rater reliability, treating raters as items (see Kaufman et al., 2008a). For the purpose of assessing the consistency of the raters, missing data were addressed by excluding respondents who missed more than 10% of the total. This removed 27 of the 203 respondents (n = 176). The consistency of raters was then computed for each individual mousetrap by rotating the dataset to treat the raters as items. This resulted in a 30 × 176 matrix for each stimulus, with the following results for coefficient alpha for inter-rater reliability:
参与者之间的一致性通过克朗巴赫系数α（Cronbach, 1951）进行评估。系数α是内部一致性的标准测量，已在创造力研究中作为评估评审者间可靠性的指标，将评审者视为项目（见 Kaufman 等，2008a）。为了评估评审者的一致性，缺失数据通过排除缺失超过 10%总数的受访者来处理。这排除了 203 名受访者中的 27 名（n = 176）。然后，通过旋转数据集将评审者视为项目，计算每个单独的捕鼠器的评审者一致性。这导致每个刺激的 30 × 176 矩阵，以下是评审者间可靠性的系数α结果：
Stimulus 1: 0.976; Stimulus 2: 0.956; Stimulus 3: 0.971; Stimulus 4: 0.941; Stimulus 5: 0.853.
刺激 1：0.976；刺激 2：0.956；刺激 3：0.971；刺激 4：0.941；刺激 5：0.853。
In addition, the consistency of raters (inter-rater reliability) for all five stimuli combined was also computed using the same approach. The 30 × 880 matrix formed by treating raters as items across all five stimuli resulted in a coefficient alpha of 0.956. This places the consistency of the raters in the excellent range (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Because of the high inter-rater reliability of scores across all mousetraps, ratings for the five different stimuli were combined for the purpose of a confirmatory factor analysis of the CSDS.
此外，使用相同的方法计算了所有五个刺激的评分者一致性（评分者间可靠性）。将评分者视为所有五个刺激的项目形成的 30 × 880 矩阵的系数α为 0.956。这将评分者的一致性置于优秀范围内（Nunnally & Bernstein，1994）。由于所有捕鼠器的评分具有高的评分者间可靠性，因此为了对 CSDS 进行确认性因素分析，将五个不同刺激的评分合并。
Scale Reliability 量表可靠性
Scale reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha to assess the mean inter-item correlations for the five different stimuli. Scale reliability was computed for each separate stimulus based on a matrix of 203 responses across 30 CSDS items. After listwise deletions, the following scale reliabilities were obtained: Stimulus 1: 0.948 (160 valid cases); Stimulus 2: 0.947 (168 valid cases); Stimulus 3: 0.954 (152 valid cases); Stimulus 4: 0.965 (164 valid cases); Stimulus 5: 0.968 (149 valid cases). The mean scale reliability was therefore 0.956. This places both the individual scale reliabilities, and the mean value, in the excellent range (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
使用 Cronbach's alpha 计算量表的可靠性，以评估五种不同刺激的平均项目间相关性。根据 203 个响应的矩阵，针对 30 个 CSDS 项目计算了每个单独刺激的量表可靠性。在逐项删除后，获得了以下量表可靠性：刺激 1：0.948（160 个有效案例）；刺激 2：0.947（168 个有效案例）；刺激 3：0.954（152 个有效案例）；刺激 4：0.965（164 个有效案例）；刺激 5：0.968（149 个有效案例）。因此，平均量表可靠性为 0.956。这使得个别量表的可靠性和平均值都处于优秀范围内（Nunnally & Bernstein，1994）。
Factor Analysis 因子分析
The Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale is based on a theoretical model of functional creativity that links four dimensions (Relevance & Effectiveness; Novelty; Elegance; Genesis) to a larger set of 30 variables of indicators. The proposed structure was created to balance the competing needs of parsimony (in explaining and measuring product creativity in a simple and economical manner) and utility (in providing an instrument that explains creativity in sufficient detail to render it useful as, e.g., a diagnostic tool). Factor analysis “is used most frequently in the development of … instruments and in testing theories about instruments or the theories on which instruments are based” (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987).
创造性解决方案诊断量表基于一个功能性创造力的理论模型，该模型将四个维度（相关性与有效性；新颖性；优雅；生成）与 30 个指标变量的更大集合联系起来。所提出的结构旨在平衡简约性（以简单和经济的方式解释和测量产品创造力的竞争需求）和实用性（提供一个足够详细解释创造力的工具，使其作为例如诊断工具变得有用）。因子分析“在……工具的开发和测试关于工具的理论或工具所基于的理论时最常用”（Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987）。
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is used to discover structure among a relatively large set of variables. EFA does not advance any a priori hypotheses about the results or structure. EFA does not, for example, specify the number of factors before the analysis is conducted.
探索性因子分析（EFA）用于发现相对较大变量集中的结构。EFA 并不提出任何关于结果或结构的先验假设。例如，EFA 并不在分析进行之前指定因子的数量。
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), by contrast, involves the specification and estimation of one or more possible models of a factor structure—that is, a structure that relates an underlying construct, in the present case Functional Creativity, to a set of variables (individual measures, or items). In the case of the present study, a given theoretical model (Table 3) proposes a set of latent variables (e.g., Relevance & Effectiveness) to account for covariances among a set of observed variables (e.g., the 30 CSDS indicators) (Bagozzi, 1980; Bollen, 1989).
确认性因素分析（CFA）则涉及一个或多个可能的因素结构模型的规范和估计——即一个将潜在构念（在本研究中为功能创造力）与一组变量（个别测量或项目）相关联的结构。在本研究的情况下，给定的理论模型（表3）提出了一组潜在变量（例如，相关性和有效性），以解释一组观察变量（例如，30 个 CSDS 指标）之间的协方差（Bagozzi，1980; Bollen，1989）。
表 3。CSDS 理论模型
| Relevance & Effectiveness 相关性与有效性 |
Novelty 新奇 | Elegance 优雅 | Genesis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problematization 问题化 | Existing Knowledge 现有知识 | New Knowledge 新知识 | External 外部 | Internal 内部 | ||
| Correctness 正确性 | Prescription 处方 | Replication 复制 | Redirection 重定向 | Recognition 识别 | Completeness 完整性 | Foundationality |
| Performance 表现 | Prognosis 预后 | Combination 组合 | Reconstruction 重建 | Convincingness 说服力 | Gracefulness 优雅 | Transferability |
| Appropriateness 适当性 | Diagnosis 诊断 | Incrementation 增量 | Reinitiation 重新启动 | Pleasingness 愉悦感 | Harmoniousness 和谐性 | Germinality |
| Operability 可操作性 | Redefinition 重新定义 | Sustainability 可持续性 | Seminality | |||
| Safety 安全 | Generation 一代 | Vision | ||||
| Durability 耐用性 | Pathfinding | |||||
Confirmatory Factor Analysis requires a priori designation of plausible factor patterns from previous theoretical or empirical work; these plausible alternative models are then explicitly tested statistically against sample data. Some researchers (e.g., Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987) are more prescriptive in stating that “…confirmatory factor analysis procedures require the investigator to specify the number of factors before factoring”. Confirmatory factor analysis has been used extensively in a wide range of domains, including psychology, marketing, and counseling for validating instruments by testing alternative models (e.g., Besemer & O'Quin, 1999; Harvey, Billings & Nilan, 1985; Kumar & Sashi, 1989; Marsh, 1985; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Thacker, Fields, & Tetrick, 1989).
确认性因素分析需要从先前的理论或实证工作中指定合理的因素模式；这些合理的替代模型随后会在样本数据中进行显式的统计测试。一些研究者（例如，Tinsley & Tinsley，1987）更具规定性地指出：“……确认性因素分析程序要求研究者在进行因素分析之前指定因素的数量。”确认性因素分析已广泛应用于心理学、市场营销和咨询等多个领域，通过测试替代模型来验证工具（例如，Besemer & O'Quin，1999；Harvey, Billings & Nilan，1985；Kumar & Sashi，1989；Marsh，1985；Marsh & Hocevar，1985；Thacker, Fields, & Tetrick，1989）。
因此，有必要对 CSDS 进行实证测试以确定：
- The degree to which the proposed CSDS structure (Table 1) fits a CFA.
所提议的 CSDS 结构（表1）与 CFA 的适配程度。 - The reliability/internal consistency (degree to which each item statistically fits other items) of the CSDS.
CSDS 的可靠性/内部一致性（每个项目在统计上与其他项目的适配程度）。 - The convergent validity of the CSDS—does the proposed instrument measure creativity? Can we correlate measures on the CSDS to another established measure of creativity?
CSDS 的收敛效度——所提议的工具是否测量创造力？我们能否将 CSDS 的测量与另一个已建立的创造力测量相关联？
Four primary factors (Relevance & Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Genesis) provide a theoretical framework for explaining the Functional Creativity construct by identifying underlying components that permit more precision in formulating and testing research hypotheses in the field of product creativity. The analysis that was conducted was confirmatory in the sense that the procedure was used to test the fit of the 30 indicators to the hypothesized four-factor CSDS structure. However, it may also be viewed as exploratory, in the sense that in the analysis we did not fix the number of factors at four, but allowed this to emerge from the procedure.
四个主要因素（相关性与有效性、新颖性、优雅性和生成性）提供了一个理论框架，通过识别潜在组件来解释功能创造力构念，从而在产品创造力领域中更精确地制定和测试研究假设。所进行的分析是确认性的，因为该程序用于测试 30 个指标与假设的四因素 CSDS 结构的适配性。然而，这也可以被视为探索性的，因为在分析中我们并没有将因素的数量固定为四个，而是允许其从程序中出现。
Prior to commencing factor analysis, the data were tested for their suitability. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.943, and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity resulted in an approximate Chi-Square value of 15832.166, df = 276, and a significance of p < 0.001, indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis.
在进行因子分析之前，数据的适用性进行了测试。Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 抽样充足性测度为 0.943，Bartlett 球形检验的卡方值约为 15832.166，df = 276，显著性为p < 0.001，表明数据适合进行因子分析。
Principle Axis Factoring was selected as the extraction method for its ability to examine shared variance and to uncover the structure of the underlying variables. An Oblimin rotation was used for its assumption that correlations exist between the items of the CSDS, in contrast to a Varimax rotation which assumes that items are uncorrelated. Missing values were deleted listwise from the data. Although this condition is more stringent than pairwise deletion (i.e., replacing missing values with means), it yielded 793 valid responses for each of the 30 CSDS items.
原则轴因子分析被选为提取方法，因为它能够检查共享方差并揭示潜在变量的结构。使用了 Oblimin 旋转，因为它假设 CSDS 项目之间存在相关性，而 Varimax 旋转则假设项目之间不相关。缺失值按列表方式删除。尽管这一条件比成对删除（即用均值替换缺失值）更严格，但它为每个 30 个 CSDS 项目提供了 793 个有效响应。
The criterion that was applied for accepting an item as loading onto a factor was that the loading should be > 0.4, whereas items loading at < 0.3 were regarded as failing to load onto a given factor. These criteria are consistent with accepted values (see, for example, Comrey & Lee, 1992).
接受项目加载到因子上的标准是加载应大于 0.4，而加载小于 0.3 的项目被视为未能加载到给定因子。这些标准与公认的值一致（例如，参见 Comrey & Lee，1992）。
The factor analysis was conducted with all 30 CSDS items. Items with cross-loadings > 0.3 were excluded one at a time, and the factor analysis repeated with the goal of achieving a simple structure in which each item loaded onto a single factor at > 0.4. Table 4 shows the simple structure that was achieved after the exclusion of six items that either loaded onto no factor or which cross-loaded at > 0.3 and were therefore considered to be redundant.
因子分析是针对所有 30 个 CSDS 项目进行的。交叉载荷超过 0.3 的项目逐个被排除，并重复进行因子分析，目标是实现一个简单结构，使每个项目在载荷超过 0.4 的情况下仅加载到一个因子上。表4显示了在排除六个要么没有载荷要么交叉载荷超过 0.3 的项目后所实现的简单结构，因此这些项目被认为是冗余的。
表 4. 确证性因子分析—创造性解决方案诊断量表模式矩阵
| Factor 因素 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Vision 视觉 | .841 | .041 | .031 | .003 | .004 |
| Transferability 可转让性 | .818 | .008 | −.024 | −.009 | .019 |
| Seminality 重要性 | .807 | −.080 | .111 | −.093 | .049 |
| Pathfinding 路径寻找 | .777 | .015 | −.009 | .109 | .015 |
| Germinality | .732 | .033 | −.048 | .173 | −.006 |
| Foundationality 基础性 | .495 | .115 | −.007 | .162 | .001 |
| Performance 表现 | .023 | .911 | .037 | −.027 | −.034 |
| Appropriateness 适当性 | .029 | .869 | .019 | .002 | .026 |
| Correctness 正确性 | −.002 | .752 | .008 | .037 | .092 |
| Prescription 处方 | .005 | .008 | .886 | −.026 | −.005 |
| Prognosis 预后 | −.002 | −.003 | .808 | .065 | .025 |
| Diagnosis 诊断 | .013 | .006 | .643 | .032 | −.013 |
| Redefinition 重新定义 | .012 | .001 | .040 | .832 | .077 |
| Reinitiation 重新启动 | .093 | −.066 | −.036 −0.036 | .799 | −.054 |
| Generation 一代 | .118 | −.001 | .047 | .749 | .031 |
| Redirection | .061 | .086 | .112 | .650 | .048 |
| Combination | −.004 | .125 | .178 | .488 | .091 |
| Pleasingness | .026 | −.064 | .021 | −.002 | .927 |
| Completeness | .013 | −.051 | .032 | −.005 | .921 |
| Sustainability | .111 | .114 | .059 | −.119 | .754 |
| Gracefulness | −.026 | −.079 | −.036 | .072 | .741 |
| Convincingness | .053 | .149 | .059 | .006 | .698 |
| Harmoniousness | .130 | .174 | .053 | −.071 | .678 |
| Safety | −.079 | .153 | −.041 | .141 | .480 |
-
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.
提取方法：主轴因子分析。旋转方法：Kaiser 标准化的 Oblimin。旋转在 13 次迭代中收敛。
The simple structure in Table 4 resulted in the exclusion of six redundant or irrelevant items from the CSDS scale: Operability, Durability, Replication, Incrementation, Reconstruction, and Recognition. This structure satisfies typical criteria for a simple structure, including a minimum of three items per factor. The majority of items in this structure have loading rated as either “very good” or “excellent” (Comrey & Lee, 1992: > 0.7 excellent; > 0.63 very good; > 0.55 good; > 0.45 fair). Finally, the five factors in the simple structure shown in Table 4 account for 68.127% of the total variance.
表4中的简单结构导致从 CSDS 量表中排除了六个冗余或无关的项目：可操作性、耐用性、复制性、增量、重建和识别。该结构满足简单结构的典型标准，包括每个因子至少有三个项目。该结构中的大多数项目的载荷评级为“非常好”或“优秀”（Comrey & Lee，1992：> 0.7 优秀；> 0.63 非常好；> 0.55 好；> 0.45 一般）。最后，表4中所示的简单结构中的五个因子占总方差的 68.127%。
Linear Regression 线性回归
A stepwise linear regression was conducted to see how the 24 items of the CSDS (after exclusion of the redundant items indicated by the confirmatory factor analysis) predicted the overall creativity rating for the mousetraps. As can be seen in Table 5, eight of the items significantly predicted the overall creativity score, F (8, 798) = 69.962, p < 0.0001. The model summary indicates that 41.2% (R2) of the variance of overall creativity has been significantly explained by these eight independent variables.
进行了逐步线性回归，以查看 CSDS 的 24 个项目（在排除确认性因素分析所指示的冗余项目后）如何预测捕鼠器的整体创造力评分。如表5所示，八个项目显著预测了整体创造力得分，F (8, 798) = 69.962，p < 0.0001。模型摘要表明，这八个自变量显著解释了整体创造力 41.2%（R2）的方差。
表 5。线性回归，24 项创造性解决方案诊断量表
| Variable 变量 | B | Beta |
|---|---|---|
| Redirection 重定向 | 0.219** | 0.193 |
| Correctness 正确性 | 0.216** | 0.199 |
| Redefinition 重新定义 | 0.115* | 0.102 |
| Germinality | 0.104* | 0.092 |
| Combination 组合 | 0.121** | 0.107 |
| Diagnosis 诊断 | −0.092** | −0.078 |
| Harmoniousness 和谐性 | 0.107** | 0.096 |
| Reinitiation 重新启动 | 0.115** | 0.111 |
-
R2 = 0.412, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
R2 = 0.412, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Factor Correlation Matrix
因子相关矩阵
A factor correlation matrix for the CSDS data was also computed (Table 6). This factor correlation matrix for the new structure indicates two important features of the revised CSDS scale. First, all five factors are positively correlated with a degree. This fits the theoretical model, in the sense that all contribute to the construct Functional Creativity. Second, it indicates stronger positive correlations between some factors. For example, Genesis and Propulsion correlate strongly (0.705), as do Relevance, Effectiveness, and Elegance (0.638). This is supported by the underlying relationships of the criteria that define functional creativity. Genesis and Propulsion, for example, both relate to new knowledge, ideas and solutions—Propulsion is concerned more with novelty, as it relates to the problem in hand, whereas Genesis is concerned more with future novelty and possibilities. Relevance, Effectiveness, and Elegance are also conceptually related. Relevance and Effectiveness examines the degree to which a product satisfies the defined need (what it does), whereas Elegance examines how well it does so.
CSDS 数据的因子相关矩阵也被计算出来（表6）。这个新结构的因子相关矩阵表明了修订后的 CSDS 量表的两个重要特征。首先，所有五个因子都在一定程度上正相关。这符合理论模型，因为所有因子都对功能创造力这一构念有所贡献。其次，它表明某些因子之间的正相关性更强。例如，Genesis 和 Propulsion 之间的相关性很强（0.705），Relevance、Effectiveness 和 Elegance 之间的相关性也是如此（0.638）。这得到了定义功能创造力的标准之间潜在关系的支持。例如，Genesis 和 Propulsion 都与新知识、想法和解决方案相关——Propulsion 更关注新颖性，因为它与当前的问题相关，而 Genesis 则更关注未来的新颖性和可能性。Relevance、Effectiveness 和 Elegance 在概念上也相关。Relevance 和 Effectiveness 考察产品满足定义需求的程度（它的功能），而 Elegance 则考察它的表现如何。
表 6。 创意解决方案诊断量表因子相关矩阵
| Factor 因素 | Problematization 问题化 | Genesis 创世纪 | Propulsion 推进 | Relevance & Effectiveness 相关性与有效性 |
Elegance 优雅 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problematization 问题化 | 1.000 | .556 | .447 | .483 | .406 |
| Genesis 创世纪 | .556 | 1.000 | .705 | .350 | .448 |
| Propulsion 推进 | .447 | .705 | 1.000 | .322 | .424 |
| Relevance & Effectiveness 相关性与有效性 |
.483 | .350 | .322 | 1.000 | .638 |
| Elegance 优雅 | .406 | .448 | .424 | .638 | 1.000 |
-
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
提取方法：主轴因子分析。旋转方法：Kaiser 标准化的 Oblimin。
Discussion 讨论
The simple structure shown in Table 4 has a close correspondence to the theoretical model described in Table 3. The six items that load onto Factor 1 are all items identified in the theoretical model as indicators under the criterion “Genesis”. Factor 1 will therefore be named “Genesis”. Three items, all drawn from the criterion Relevance and Effectiveness, load onto Factor 2, which will therefore be named “Relevance and Effectiveness.” Factor 3 is represented by three items that were identified by the secondary criterion “Problematization” in the theoretical model, and will be designated “Problematization.” Factor 4 is characterized by items that represent new and existing knowledge (Novelty) in the theoretical model. The items which load onto Factor 4 can all be characterized by the Propulsion Model (Sternberg et al., 2002) and Factor 4 will therefore be designated “Propulsion.” Factor 5 is characterized by items which represent the criterion Elegance and other qualities of good products (for example, Safety) that will be designated as “Elegance.”
表4中所示的简单结构与表3中描述的理论模型有密切的对应关系。加载到因子 1 上的六个项目都是在理论模型中被识别为“起源”标准下的指标。因此，因子 1 将被命名为“起源”。三个项目，全部来自“相关性和有效性”标准，加载到因子 2 上，因此将被命名为“相关性和有效性”。因子 3 由三个项目组成，这些项目在理论模型中被识别为次要标准“问题化”，将被指定为“问题化”。因子 4 的特征是代表理论模型中新旧知识（新颖性）的项目。加载到因子 4 上的项目都可以通过推进模型（Sternberg et al., 2002）来表征，因此因子 4 将被指定为“推进”。因子 5 的特征是代表优雅标准和其他良好产品特质（例如，安全性）的项目，将被指定为“优雅”。
Table 7 captures the revised version of the CSDS derived from the confirmatory factor analysis. The analysis is confirmatory in that it supports the general structure of the theoretical model (Table 3), however, it identifies a refinement with the addition of Problematization as a distinct, secondary criterion, and has eliminated six redundant or irrelevant indicators from the original 30 (Table 2).
表7捕捉了从验证性因子分析中得出的 CSDS 修订版本。该分析是验证性的，因为它支持理论模型的一般结构（表3），然而，它通过将问题化作为一个独特的次要标准进行了细化，并从原始的 30 个指标中消除了六个冗余或不相关的指标（表2）。
表 7。修订版创意解决方案诊断量表
| Functional Creativity 功能创造力 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance & Effectiveness 相关性与有效性 |
Problematization 问题化 | Propulsion 推进 | Elegance 优雅 | Genesis 创世纪 |
| Performance 表现 | Prescription 处方 | Redefinition 重新定义 | Pleasingness 愉悦感 | Vision 视觉 |
| Appropriateness 适当性 | Prognosis 预后 | Reinitiation 重新启动 | Completeness 完整性 | Transferability 可转让性 |
| Correctness 正确性 | Diagnosis 诊断 | Generation 一代 | Sustainability 可持续性 | Seminality 重要性 |
| Redirection 重定向 | Gracefulness 优雅 | Pathfinding 路径寻找 | ||
| Combination 组合 | Convincingness 说服力 | Germinality | ||
| Harmoniousness 和谐性 | Foundationality 基础性 | |||
| Safety 安全 | ||||
Conclusion 结论
The confirmatory factor analysis undertaken has shown that six items in the 30-item CSDS are redundant and can be eliminated. The remaining 24 items result in a simple structure of five factors that support the criteria and structure defined by Cropley and Cropley (2005) as a model of functional creativity.
所进行的确认性因素分析表明，30 项 CSDS 中的六项是多余的，可以被删除。剩下的 24 项形成了一个简单的五因素结构，支持 Cropley 和 Cropley（2005）定义的标准和结构，作为功能性创造力的模型。
The analysis has also shown that non-expert judges can reliably assess the creativity of products using a more highly differentiated scale (the CSDS) with no formal training. These results suggest that, given the right tool, non-experts judges are able to recognize and quantify widely accepted characteristics of creative products, including effectiveness and novelty. Whereas further questions, of course, remain to be investigated, not least whether these non-expert raters produce scores that are correlated with expert ratings, the current results do address a key criticism (Baer, 2010) regarding reliability in previous studies. If the expert–novice agreement level is comparable to the low levels found using the Consensual Assessment Technique, as some studies suggest, then novice CSDS ratings may nevertheless be used as an alternate rating representing public perception. If experts and novices agree at a stronger rate, then CSDS ratings may be able to supplement or even replace expert ratings. A reliable instrument for non-expert judgments of creativity (the CSDS) also permits more research to be undertaken in related questions. One key variable will be whether the questions in the CSDS help shape novice judgments in a way that serves as a type of informal training. Past research (Dollinger & Shafran, 2005) has indicated such training can help novice ratings correspond more closely with expert ratings. The CSDS may also shed light on the nature of expert assessments. Past research (Runco, McCarthy, & Svenson, 1994) has suggested that expert ratings of artworks may be more severe than ratings by peers, or by the artists themselves. The availability of a reliable instrument like the CSDS may serve to smooth differences between experts that have confounded previous studies (e.g., Hickey, 2001) by balancing individual, expert conceptions of creativity with a uniform framework of categories (effectiveness, novelty, elegance, etc.). Future research therefore needs to compare non-expert CSDS ratings with unconstrained expert ratings, as well as with expert rating made using the CSDS.
分析还表明，非专家评审可以使用更高区分度的量表（CSDS）可靠地评估产品的创造力，而无需正式培训。这些结果表明，给定合适的工具，非专家评审能够识别和量化广泛接受的创造性产品特征，包括有效性和新颖性。当然，仍然有进一步的问题需要研究，尤其是这些非专家评审的评分是否与专家评分相关，但当前的结果确实回应了之前研究中关于可靠性的一个关键批评（Baer, 2010）。如果专家与新手的协议水平与使用共识评估技术时发现的低水平相当，如一些研究所示，那么新手的 CSDS 评分仍然可以作为代表公众认知的替代评分。如果专家和新手的意见一致性更强，那么 CSDS 评分可能能够补充甚至替代专家评分。用于非专家创造力判断的可靠工具（CSDS）也允许在相关问题上进行更多研究。 一个关键变量将是 CSDS 中的问题是否以某种方式帮助塑造新手的判断，从而作为一种非正式培训。过去的研究（Dollinger & Shafran, 2005）表明，这种培训可以帮助新手的评分与专家的评分更紧密地对应。CSDS 也可能揭示专家评估的性质。过去的研究（Runco, McCarthy, & Svenson, 1994）表明，专家对艺术作品的评分可能比同行或艺术家本人更为严格。像 CSDS 这样可靠的工具的可用性可能有助于平滑专家之间的差异，这些差异在之前的研究中造成了混淆（例如，Hickey, 2001），通过将个体专家对创造力的概念与统一的类别框架（有效性、新颖性、优雅等）相平衡。因此，未来的研究需要将非专家的 CSDS 评分与不受限制的专家评分进行比较，以及与使用 CSDS 进行的专家评分进行比较。
Linear regression analysis lends support to the revised CSDS, indicating that each of the five factors identified is linked to at least one CSDS item that is a significant predictor of overall creativity (Table 5). Furthermore, the factor Propulsion, with four of five individual items being strong predictors of overall creativity, is important to the overall construct of functional creativity. Lastly, the linear regression analysis also suggests that some of the factors (Relevance & Effectiveness; Problematization; Elegance; Genesis) may be harder for novices to rate, or that novice raters may find it harder to perceive how these concepts are related to creativity.
线性回归分析支持修订后的 CSDS，表明识别出的五个因素中的每一个都与至少一个 CSDS 项目相关，该项目是整体创造力的重要预测因素（表5）。此外，因素推进中五个单独项目中的四个是整体创造力的强预测因素，这对功能创造力的整体构念至关重要。最后，线性回归分析还表明，一些因素（相关性与有效性；问题化；优雅；生成）可能对新手来说更难以评分，或者新手评分者可能更难以感知这些概念与创造力之间的关系。
On a broader level, we hope that such free and publicly available instruments as the CSDS can help encourage more research on functional creativity. Aesthetic creativity is certainly meaningful, but the extent to which creativity measurement focuses on art or writing is likely borne out of simplicity; it is easier to have people create and then rate a drawing or a poem than design a mousetrap. If the rating aspect can become more accessible, then more functional creativity research may become more feasible.
在更广泛的层面上，我们希望像 CSDS 这样的免费和公开可用的工具能够帮助鼓励更多关于功能性创造力的研究。审美创造力当然是有意义的，但创造力测量在多大程度上关注艺术或写作，可能是出于简单性；让人们创作并评估一幅画或一首诗比设计一个捕鼠器要容易。如果评估方面变得更加可及，那么更多的功能性创造力研究可能会变得更加可行。
Acknowledgments 致谢
The authors wish to thank Arielle White for her assistance with data collection and Raul Salcedo for his help in preparing the manuscript.
作者感谢阿里埃尔·怀特在数据收集方面的帮助，以及劳尔·萨尔塞多在准备手稿方面的帮助。
Appendix 附录
Mousetrap Descriptions 老鼠夹描述
Stimulus 1 = Bottle Mousetrap—This design attracts a mouse to a food source in a glass bottle, but uses a coil of wire, inserted in the open top of the bottle, to trap the mouse as it attempts to enter the bottle to retrieve the food.
刺激物 1 = 瓶子捕鼠器——该设计吸引老鼠到一个装有食物的玻璃瓶中，但在瓶子的开口顶部插入一圈铁丝，以在老鼠试图进入瓶子取食时捕捉它。
Stimulus 2 = House Mousetrap—This proprietary design, shaped like a small house, is made from clear plastic and uses a hinged flap to allow a mouse to enter, trapping it inside. The design contains the mouse inside the device, allowing it to be released at an appropriate time/place.
刺激物 2 = 房屋捕鼠器——这种专有设计呈小房子的形状，由透明塑料制成，使用铰链翻盖让老鼠进入，将其困在内部。该设计将老鼠困在设备内，允许在适当的时间/地点释放它。
Stimulus 3 = Cage Mousetrap—This design uses a sprung trap door to contain the mouse in a wire cage. Upon entering the trap, the mouse will trigger the trapdoor, preventing it from exiting.
刺激物 3 = 笼子捕鼠器——该设计使用一个弹簧陷阱门将老鼠困在一个铁丝笼中。老鼠进入捕鼠器后，会触发陷阱门，防止其逃出。
Stimulus 4 = Hi-tech Mousetrap—This design uses a complex, computerized control mechanism to trigger the trap. Upon entering the trap, the device is activated. A motorized arm releases the upper part of the trap (a plastic container), which falls over a similarly shaped lower container, closing the entry point and containing the mouse inside the trap.
刺激物 4 = 高科技捕鼠器——该设计使用复杂的计算机控制机制来触发捕鼠器。当老鼠进入捕鼠器时，设备被激活。一个电动臂释放捕鼠器的上部（一个塑料容器），它落在一个形状相似的下部容器上，关闭入口并将老鼠困在捕鼠器内。
Stimulus 5 = Plastic Mousetrap—This proprietary design resembles a conventional wooden, spring-loaded mousetrap. The device is made from plastic. When activated, a plastic arm snaps down on the mouse.
刺激物 5 = 塑料捕鼠器——这种专有设计类似于传统的木制弹簧捕鼠器。该装置由塑料制成。当被激活时，一个塑料臂会迅速压下捕捉老鼠。
