Translation and Validation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale on a Croatian Sample of Early Childhood and Preschool Education Students

  • Marijana Županić Benić Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Croatia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.708
Keywords: creativity self-assessment, domains of creativity, factor analysis, Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale, scale validation

Abstract

The current literature describes creativity as a domain-specific phenom-enon. According to Kaufman’s five-factor model, creativity can manifest in the following distinctive domains: Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Perfor-mance, Mechanical/Scientific and Artistic. The purpose of the present study was to validate the Croatian version of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. The scale was administered to a sample of early child-hood and preschool education students (N = 222). The results of the ex-ploratory factor analysis showed that certain Self/Everyday tasks did not load on any of the scales, whereas some music-related tasks separated from other Performance tasks into a separate factor. These results could be explained by the characteristics of the convenience sample recruited for the study. The confirmatory factor analysis of the five-factor mod-el and goodness-of-fit tests yielded results that are as satisfactory and consistent as previous validations. The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale is therefore considered to be a potentially feasible scale for assess-ing creativity as a domain-specific phenomenon. Additional research is needed to confirm the validity of the Croatian version of the scale with a representative random sample.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amabile, T. (2011). Componential theory of creativity (Working Paper No. 12-096). Harvard Business School.

Awofala, A. O., & Fatade, A. O. (2015). Validation of the domains of creativity scale for Nigerian preservice science, technology, and mathematics teachers. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(1), 131–150.

Beghetto, R. A. (2005a). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254–263.

Beghetto, R. A. (2005b). Preservice teachers’ self-judgments of test taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 376–380.

Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge University Press.

Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press.

Cheung, R. H. P., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ perception of creative personality as a predictor of their support of pedagogy important for fostering creativity: A Chinese perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 276–286.

Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240.

Craft, A. (2003). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. Routledge.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity (pp. 47–61). Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000

Feist, G. J. (2004). Creativity and the frontal lobes. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5(1), 21–28.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10(1), 10–15.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 231–247.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. Basic Books.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.

Haylock, D. W. (1987). Mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(1), 48–59.

Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152–165.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.

Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. Springer Publishing Company.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.

Maksić, S. B., & Spasenović, V. Z. (2018). Educational science students’ implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 287–294.

McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: validating the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 216–230.

Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46–58.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.

Robinson, K. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 2–30). Academic Press.

Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.3738&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Sekulić-Majurec, A. (2007). Uloga sudionika odgojno-obrazovnog procesa u stvaranju, provedbi i vrednovanju kurikuluma [The role of participants in the education process in creating, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum]. In V. Previšić (Ed.), Kurikulum: teorije–metodologija–sadržaj–struktura [Curriculum: Theories-methods-contents-structure] (pp. 351–380). Zagreb, Školska knjiga.

Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 97–106.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Investing in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229–232.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.

Zoglowek, H. (2018). Teacher of the gifted – What is needed. In J. Herzog (Ed.), Challenges of working with gifted pupils in European school systems (pp. 265–274). Verlag Dr. KovaÄ.

Published
2021-09-28
How to Cite
Županić Benić, M. (2021). Translation and Validation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale on a Croatian Sample of Early Childhood and Preschool Education Students. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.708
Issue
Vol 11 No 3 (2021): The Contexts and Processes of Shaping Teacher Identity
Section
VARIA

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
  2. The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
  3. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.