Development and Validation of a Reliable and Valid Assessment Tool for Measuring Innovative Thinking in Vocational Students
The objective of this study was to develop a measure that possesses both reliability and validity in order to evaluate innovative thinking within the .
- Pub. date: February 15, 2024
- Pages: 35-44
- 197 Downloads
- 419 Views
- 0 Citations
The objective of this study was to develop a measure that possesses both reliability and validity in order to evaluate innovative thinking within the realm of education. To achieve this, the instrument's validity and reliability were evaluated through quantitative methods in two distinct phases. A team of educational experts conducted the process of establishing content validity and ensuring that the items on the instrument accurately reflected the intended constructs of creative thinking. Following that, the assessment of concept validity was conducted using confirmatory factor analyses. The aforementioned investigations resulted in the discovery of a five-factor solution consisting of 25 elements, all of which demonstrated scores beyond the crucial threshold. This successful outcome confirmed the presence of distinct factors representing different dimensions of innovative thinking. The study enrolled 1250 students from vocational education institutions as participants. The data obtained from the participants was subjected to principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, leading to the development of a model that exhibited a good match with the empirical data. This indicated the effectiveness of the developed instrument in measuring innovative thinking capacity. In conclusion, the research effectively developed an accurate and dependable tool for evaluating innovative thinking in the realm of education. The gathering of positive data from the participants and meticulous quantitative analyses were responsible for this.
Keywords: Innovative thinking, measurement tool, reliability, validity.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Barak, M., & Asakle, S. (2018). AugmentedWorld: Facilitating the creation of location-based questions. Computers and Education, 121, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.014
Barak, M., & Usher, M. (2019). The innovation profile of nanotechnology team projects of face-to-face and online learners. Computers and Education, 137, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.012
Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2020). Establishing the validity and reliability of a modified tool for assessing innovative thinking of engineering students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620680
Barak, M., & Yuan, S. (2021). A cultural perspective to project-based learning and the cultivation of innovative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100766
Cabra, J. F., & Uribe-Larach, D. (2013). Creative behavior. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 266-271). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_7
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000008
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 317-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.59
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2009/12/the-innovators-dna
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review Press.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And Sex and Drugs and Rock “N” Roll. Sage.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Janger, J., Schubert, T., Andries, P., Rammer, C., & Hoskens, M. (2017). The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes? Research policy, 46(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.001
Kanter, R. M. (1996). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In P. S. Myers (Ed.), Knowledge management and organizational design (pp.93-131). Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-9749-1.50010-7
Khumphai, T., Lainjumroom, P., & Pandam, S. (2021). การพัฒนากําลังคนอาชีวศึกษาด้านอุตสาหกรรมเพื่อรองรับการพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจฐานนวัตกรรม[Development of vocational manpower in industrial field for supporting value-based economic development]. Journal of Learning Innovation and Technology/วารสารนวัตกรรมการเรียนรู้และเทคโนโลยี, 1(1), 52–62. https://bit.ly/3NQMtty
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Little, T. D. (2013). The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods, volume 1: Foundations. Oxford University Press.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740-760. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64870100
Morad, S., Ragonis, N., & Barak, M. (2021). The validity and reliability of a tool for measuring educational innovative thinking competencies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, Article 103193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103193
Orakcı, Ş., Dilekli, Y., & Erdağ, C. (2020). The structural relationship between accountability felt and responsible teaching in Turkish teachers: The mediating effect of innovative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, Article 100662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100662
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en
Parise, S., Whelan, E., & Todd, S. (2015). How Twitter users can generate better ideas. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 21–25.
Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In W. R. Richard, R. C. Fraley, & F. K. Robert (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (1st ed., pp.224-239). The Guilford Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Reid, S. E., & de Brentani, U. (2015). Building a measurement model for market visioning competence and its proposed antecedents: Organizational encouragement of divergent thinking, divergent thinking attitudes, and ideational behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12232
Schar, M., Gilmartin, S., Harris, A., Rieken, B., & Sheppard, S. (2017). Innovation self-efficacy: A very brief measure for engineering students (Eds.), Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Columbus, OH (pp. 1-10). American Society for Engineering Education. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10043009
Strange, W. (2012). Interview with Hal Gregersen, author of The Innovator's DNA. Strategic Direction, 28(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/02580541211203808
Tang, M., & Werner, C. H. (2017). An interdisciplinary and intercultural approach to creativity and innovation: Evaluation of the EMCI ERASMUS intensive program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.001
Tobar-Muñoz, H., Cárcamo, J. G., Solarte, H., Ventes, C., & Mesa, J. H. (2020). Videogames and innovation: Fostering innovators’ skills in online-learning environments. Sustainability, 12(21), Article 9264. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219264
Unterschuetz, C., Hughes, P., Nienhauser, D., Weberg, D., & Jackson, L. (2008). Caring for innovation and caring for the innovator. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAQ.0000314542.67359.fe
Verdin, D., Godwin, A., & Benedict, B. (2020). Exploring first-year engineering students’ innovation self-efficacy beliefs by gender and discipline. Journal of Civil Engineering Education, 146(4), Article 04020006 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000020
Wongyai, W., & Pattanapol, M. (2019). การพัฒนาทักษะสร้างสรรค์นวัตกรรม [Development of creative innovation]. Innovative Leaders Center in Curriculum and Learning (LCCL). https://bit.ly/3NXwxFH