logo logo International Journal of Educational Methodology

IJEM is a leading, peer-reviewed, open access, research journal that provides an online forum for studies in education, by and for scholars and practitioners, worldwide.

Subscribe to

Receive Email Alerts

for special events, calls for papers, and professional development opportunities.

Subscribe

Publisher (HQ)

RHAPSODE LTD
Eurasian Society of Educational Research
College House, 2nd Floor 17 King Edwards Road, Ruislip, London, UK. HA4 7AE
RHAPSODE LTD
Headquarters
College House, 2nd Floor 17 King Edwards Road, Ruislip, London, UK. HA4 7AE
innovative thinking measurement tool reliability validity

Development and Validation of a Reliable and Valid Assessment Tool for Measuring Innovative Thinking in Vocational Students

Peeraya Sukkeewan , Noawanit Songkram , Jaitip Nasongkhla

The objective of this study was to develop a measure that possesses both reliability and validity in order to evaluate innovative thinking within the .

T

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.

cloud_download PDF
Cite
Article Metrics
Views
320
Download
621
Citations
Crossref
0

Scopus
0

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), 233255. 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 innovators 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), 155. 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), 563575. 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), 2125.

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), 243262. 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, 268278. 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  

...