Introduction

Creativity, often described as the spark that ignites innovation and originality, plays a
pivotal role in various domains such as art, science, business, and everyday problem-solving
(Drapeau, 2014). Creativity according to Plucker et al., (2004) is the interaction among aptitude,
process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is
both novel and useful as defined within a social context”. It is a primary force in the human
experience - a necessary component of humankind’s quest for survival and growth. Creative acts
have impacted human existence throughout the history of mankind. From the highest
achievements in the arts and sciences to the day-to-day decisions of the average person,
creativity may be a motivating factor. In the context of this work, it will be defined as the ability
to generate novel and valuable ideas, products, or solutions. It transcends mere originality; it
involves practical, intellectual, or aesthetic value. Creative artifacts can take cognitive, physical,
or cultural forms. As researchers and practitioners seek to understand and harness this elusive
quality, the development of creativity scales becomes crucial. This is because measurement of
creativity could help to identify potential, predict success, fashion or tailor education of test
takers adequately, select and recruit people based on their creativity as well as an understanding
of group dynamics by measuring collective creativity to inform team composition and enhance
group performance (Penaluna et al., 2014).

Literature Review on Creativity

Traditionally, creativity is perceived as a two-criterion construct that characterizes

creative products as novel (i.e., original or unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful or meeting
task constraints). The hints to the definition of creativity along these two dimensions can be
found in literature of 19th and early 20th century (see Runco & Jaeger, 2012, for a discussion).
The first explicit definition that emphasizes these two characteristics was given by Stein (1953):
‘‘The creative work is a novel work that is accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group
in some point in time’’ (p. 311). The inaugural editorial of the Creativity Research Journal also
emphasized these two criteria: ‘‘Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and
appropriateness’’ (Runco, 1988, p. 4). Martindale (1989) characterized a creative idea with the
same characteristics: ‘‘It must be original, it must be useful or appropriate to the situation in
which it occurs, and it must actually be put to some use’’ (p. 211). Contemporary creativity

1
research considers novelty and utility as two defining features of the construct. Mayer (1999)
summarized the definitions of creativity provided by contemporary researchers in Handbook of
Creativity (Sternberg, 1999). He revealed that most of them identify novelty and utility as key
creativity features. However, reducing creativity to the features of novelty and utility seems to
devalue the rich constellation of meanings to which this construct refers. As Kaufmann (2003)
radically asserted, ‘‘The lax definition of creativity as ‘novel’ and ‘useful’ is, indeed, revealed to
be a quick and dirty approach that leaves the door open for all sorts of differing approaches to the
scientific study of the field’’ (p. 247). A number of attempts have been made to expand the
definition of creativity. For example, more recent researchers considered three criteria that echo
the standard used by the US Patent Office, namely, novelty, usefulness, and nonobviousness
(United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2011; see Simonton, 2012, for discussion). Boden
(2004) also characterized creativity with three criteria: novel, valuable, and surprising (cf.
Bruner, 1962). Piffer (2012) proposed a model in which classical characteristics—novelty and
utility—are complimented with another one, the impact. In a similar fashion, Sternberg and
Lubart (1995) asserted that ‘‘to be creative, one needs to generate ideas that are relatively novel,
appropriate, and of high quality’’ (p. 6). All these definitions share one common epistemological
orientation: They focus on novelty and the pragmatic aspects of problem solving, which appears
to reflect a Western concept of creativity. In contrast, Eastern cultures emphasize inner growth,
personal fulfilment, and aesthetic aspects of creative problem solving (Lubart, 1999; Raina,
1999; Westwood & Low, 2003). This article makes an attempt to account for different cultural
perspectives and provides a theoretical framework combining both Western and Eastern
orientations. There is no doubt in cross-cultural differences in perception of creativity (e.g.,
Averill, Chon, & Hahn, 2001; Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, 2008; Li, 1997; Niu &
Sternberg, 2006). Likewise, perception, production, and assessment of creativity can be domain
specific (see Baer, 2012, for a discussion). (Kharkhurin, 2014).

Creativity Measurement

The study of creativity began by measuring eminent artists or scientists such as Picaso or
Einstein. These people were hard to come by though and many researchers studied them
posthumously making inferences difficult (Sternberg & Lubart 1999). Studying only famous
creative individuals, and posthumously at that, limited the study of creativity according to

2
Guilford (1950) by not allowing a full view of how creativity can interact in everyday situations.
Therefore, Guilford proposed the use of a more psychometric approach involving tasks that
could be quantified much like the IQ tests for intelligence and created several paper-and-pencil
tasks including the Unusual Uses Task (also known as the Alternative Uses Task), where a
person identifies as many uses for a common object (e.g., a brick) as they can (Guilford, 1975),
allowing creativity to be exhibited by any person at any time. The scoring for this task is based
on several factors that Guilford identified as being involved in creativity. The first factor,
sensitivity to problems, is the ability to recognize that a problem exists. In the Alternative Uses
Task example, this would represent knowing that we need to use a brick for a unique reason such
as using it to hold a door open while we bring in groceries. Sensitivity to problems utilizes the
analytic abilities described by Sternberg and Lubart (1995) where someone must recognize a
problem and judge whether their own ideas to solving the problem are useful. The second factor
is fluency, or the number of ideas generated. Someone scoring high on fluency would generate
multiple unique ideas to use a brick. The third is flexibility or shifting approaches. To score high
on flexibility each of the unique ideas generated needs to be in a 5 different category. For
example, using the brick as a doorstop would be in a different category than using it as a weapon.
However, using the brick to hit your sister would be in the same category as using it as a
weapon. Flexibility utilizes Sternberg and Lubart’s (1995) practical ability of applying creative
solutions to everyday situations. Specifically, to be considered flexible a person must switch
between possible uses (situations) for each item. The last factor is originality or determining
whether a use for an item is novel (e.g., synthetic abilities, Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Using the
brick to hold a Barbie funeral would be considered more original than using it as a weapon
(Guilford, 1975). Other measures were developed drawing off of Guilford’s concepts of
creativity (Houtz & Krug, 1995; Kim, 2011; for a review see Zeng, Proctor & Salvendy, 2011)
with the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT, Torrance, 1974) as perhaps the most
popular method. The TTCT consists of two parts: a verbal scale where people are asked to
generate numerous ideas to problems posed (e.g., stating different ways to use a conventional
object such as a brick), and a figural scale where people actually produce creative works (e.g.,
completing a drawing). With this suggestion of using psychometric measures, the field took off
in studying creativity psychometrically looking at what is known as divergent thinking, the
ability to produce many unique solutions to a single problem as opposed to convergent thinking

3
where one answer is required of the problem (Bijvoet-van den Berg, & Hoicka, 2014; Claxton,
Pannells, & Rhoads, 2005; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Black, & Mccown, 2008; Runco, 1999).

Glucksberg, S. and Weisberg, R.W., 1966. Verbal behavior and problem solving: Some effects
of labeling in a functional fixedness problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), p.659.

Kim, K.H., 2011. The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity research journal, 23(4), pp.285-295.

German, T.P. and Defeyter, M.A., 2000. Immunity to functional fixedness in young
children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, pp.707-712

Waxman, S.R. and Hatch, T., 1992. Beyond the basics: Preschool children label objects flexibly
at multiple hierarchical levels. Journal of Child Language, 19(1), pp.153-166.

Charles, R.E. and Runco, M.A., 2001. Developmental trends in the evaluative and divergent
thinking of children. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), pp.417-437.

Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I., 1995. Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of
conformity. Free press.

Factors that Influence Creativity

Labelling.

What is common across the explanations for creative decline is the role that language can
play in communicating a convergent thinking emphasis (Kim, 2011). Research on functional
fixedness has, for example, explored how using labels can influence creativity. Taking the
emphasis off a leading label in a functional fixedness task can aid in more creative solutions to a
problem. More specifically, Glucksberg and Weisberg (1966) examined labels in the classic
“candle problem”, in which adults were given a candle, a book of matches, and a box of thumb
tacks and asked to find a way to affix the candle to a wall. In the standard condition, participants
9 were given a picture where the box of tacks was only labelled as “tacks” and the box become a
functionally fixed object in that most people do not see it beyond its use of holding the tacks.
Whereas in the label condition participants were given a picture in which the box and the tacks
were labelled separately, and with this additional label participants were more likely to use the

4
box on its own to achieve the goal of the task to tack the box to the wall to hold the candle
(Glucksberg & Weisberg, 1966).

Having a label for each item increased creativity because people are better able to think
about the purpose of each item individually rather than grouping them together. When grouped
together it is harder to think of using the box as anything except for holding the tacks, whereas
when we label them separately it becomes easier to think about using the box for another
purpose. Work with labels in functional fixedness suggests that the type of label used on
functionally fixed objects can influence performance on divergent thinking creativity tasks.
However, this work has been conducted primarily with adults and within the realm of a
functional fixedness task. Research with children show that children become more susceptible to
functional fixedness as they age. Children as young as 6 and 7 years old have been shown to
struggle with functional fixedness, whereas younger children aged 5 years seem to be immune to
the phenomenon (German & Defeyter, 2000). It is possible that these young children are immune
to functional fixedness because they have learned that items can have multiple labels (Waxman
& Hatch, 1992), but have not yet become overly concerned with finding an appropriate label
accepted by their teachers or parents (Kim, 2011). Therefore, school-age children may be able to
understand multiple labels for objects, but are more likely to search for the most appropriate
label that other peers, parents or teachers want them to use. Work points to the hypothesis that 10
one of the reasons children may begin to show a slump in school age is that they are given labels
that promote convergent thinking as well as being taught to be aware of what labels are valued
by teachers and peers (i.e., when asked to name an object the student knows the teacher prefers
the label “brick”, this label then colours their interpretations of what you can do with that item,
such as using it only as a “brick” and not as a “chair”). Thus, examining labels within a divergent
thinking creativity task could be useful because labels may influence children to respond with
more common uses for an item that they believe the researcher is searching for which may lead
to lower performance on a divergent thinking creativity task. Because children are encouraged to
think more convergently during the school years, these convergent labels may be especially
influential during the fourth-grade slump (Charles & Runco, 2001; Kim, 2011). For example,
recall that in divergent thinking tasks a child must come up with as many novel uses for an item
as they can (e.g., a brick). Language theories would suggest that the label provided in this task
will influence the way children solve this problem by bringing their attention to what the label

5
represents (e.g., building a house), and filtering out all other possible alternative uses for the
item, such as a chair (Kim, 2011; Waxman & Hatch, 1992). Therefore, making the labels within
a task more ambiguous by using non-sense words, such as “pelganum” may be particularly
helpful for school-age children leading to less influence of the more appropriate convergent
labels they are used to for an object, such as “brick” when generating multiple novel uses for that
object (Avila, 2018).

Executive Function.

As detailed by Sternberg and Lubart (1995), there are several cognitive and motivational factors
that influence creativity, and these individual difference factors may also interact with the
possible “slumps” we see in creativity across development. 11 One possible cognitive process
that has been linked to creativity is executive function or EF (Aziz-Zadeh, Liew, & Dandekar,
2013). EF is the cognitive control processes by which people regulate thoughts and behaviors
(Zelazo, Muller, Frye & Marcovitch, 2003). EF has been proposed to exist in a unity/diversity
framework (Miyake & Friedman, 2012) whereby different component processes are correlated
with one another because they share a common EF related to representing task information to
guide behavior. The first component, inhibition, is the ability to inhibit a prepotent response
(e.g., delaying a small for a larger reward later). The second component known as cognitive
flexibility is the ability to switch between multiple mental sets or rule sets (e.g., switching
between sorting rules). Lastly, working memory is the ability to hold information in mind while
manipulating it (e.g., repeating a series of number digits backward; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson,
Witzki, Howerter, & Wager, 2000). Considerations of EF components may be especially
important to understanding creativity. All three components have been linked to creativity
separately in adults. Young adults who score as highly creative have been found to have lower
inhibitory control compared to those with lower creative ability, perhaps because this lack of
inhibition allows them to access a greater number of stimuli or concepts during processing
(Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003; White & Shah, 2006). Zabelina and Robinson (2010)
demonstrated that highly creative young adults had an unusually high level of flexibility
(Zabelina & Robinson, 2010), likely because they are better able to determine when utilizing
automatic processes is beneficial and should not be interrupted (e.g., congruent trials on a Stroop
task where one must say a colour word written on the screen and the color of the ink matches the

6
word written, such as the word “green” written in 12 green ink) and when it is better to switch to
more consciously controlled system like EF (e.g., incongruent trials on a Stroop task where the
color word and the colour of the ink do not match, such as the word “green” written in yellow
ink; Zabelina & Robinson, 2010).

Mindset and Persistence

As with cognitive factors, personality and motivation factors are also important to
creativity because they can help individuals overcome obstacles and persist through difficult
creative tasks. Intrinsic motivation, or motivation that is centred within an individual, has been
shown to be especially important to fostering creativity (Amabile,1985). Perhaps the most
influential work on intrinsic motivational styles belongs to Dweck (2006) and her two
motivational frameworks, or mindsets, that set the stage for the way people view their abilities.
The first is a fixed mindset where a person believes their abilities are static and cannot be
changed (Dweck, 2006). For example, a person may believe they are not good at math and no
amount of studying can improve this ability. A growth mindset, on the other hand, is someone
who believes that they can change their abilities with hard work (Dweck, 2006). In this instance,
a person would seek out difficult math challenges to help them learn and grow and not 13 be
discouraged by failures. Individuals with a growth mindset seek out challenges and thrive when
problems become difficult, whereas those with a fixed mindset prefer to tackle problems that are
easy for them to solve (Dweck, 2006). With this in mind, it is hypothesized that individuals with
a growth mindset would persist longer during both convergent thinking problems and divergent
creativity problems that are more difficult and ask them to stretch their imagination and solve
problems in a different way, while those with a fixed mindset would persist only on easier
convergent thinking problems where the solution is quicker to find. Mindset has been linked to
creativity and creative self-concepts as well. Karwowski (2014) found that a growth mindset was
positively associated with creative self-concept (i.e., self-efficacy for creativity), and a fixed
mindset was negatively related to efficacy when solving insight problems (i.e., solving a creative
problem suddenly in an “aha” like experience) in adults (Avila, 2018). O’Neill (2011) examined
the mindsets of young musicians and discovered that many had been told they were “gifted” or
“talented” repeatedly and developed a fixed mindset as a result, believing that their musical
abilities lied in their static talent rather than in their hard work. When a growth mindset was

7
fostered, however, these young musicians took more risks, performed better during concerts, and
dealt with setbacks better than their fixed mindset counterparts. O’Neill’s research is in line with
Dweck’s (2007) findings that verbal praise can hinder a growth mindset, and subsequently
achievement, when directed toward the wrong things. Praise for static abilities, talents, and being
“smart” lead to a fixed mindset, whereas praise for effort and hard work can nurture a growth
mindset (Dweck, 2007), suggesting that mindset, like creativity, may be influenced by labels. 14
An important part of the growth mindset that may impact creativity is resilience or persistence.
Generating novel and useful ideas is not always an easy or quick task. Persistence allows
individuals to push through difficulties during the creative process. In a survey of 143 creativity
researchers, Dweck (2006) found that the researchers consistently rated the factors of
perseverance and resilience within a growth mindset as the most important factors contributing
to creative achievement. Lucas and Nordgren (2015) provided more information on the role of
persistence in creativity by demonstrating that persistence was a critical component of creative
performance for adults even when people underestimated it. Specifically, in a series of studies,
undergraduate participants were asked how many more responses they would generate on the
Alternative Uses Creativity Task if they were allowed more time. Consistently, people indicated
that they would likely not generate many more ideas if allowed more time even though they did
in fact generate more responses and more creative responses on creativity measures after being
allowed more time than on previous attempts, suggesting that people underestimate the value of
persistence in creative achievement. These results reinforce the idea that persistence may be a
leading factor contributing to creative achievement (Dweck, 2006) by demonstrating that when
one persists through a difficult problem, they are able to develop more novel creative solutions to
a problem, even when they do not believe that they will (Avila, 2018).

Theory of Creativity

The Componential Theory of Creativity (CTC) proposed by Amabile (1996) suggests that
creativity is produced by the interactions between three components: domain-relevant skills,
creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation. Domain-relevant skills include factual
knowledge, technical skills, and special talents in the domain in question. Factual knowledge
involves facts, principles, opinions about various questions in the domain, and knowledge of
paradigms for solving problems in the domain. Technical skills are those that may be required by

8
a given domain, such as electrical laboratory techniques in a physics setting. For instance, a
student needs to know how to conduct an experiment (technical skills) and understand Faraday’s
law (factual knowledge) to come up with a new experimental technique to test Faraday’s law.
Creativity-relevant processes are also linked to the personality traits and cognitive abilities
related to taking risks, looking at multiple ways of solving problems, and thinking outside the
box. Task motivation relates to intrinsic motivation, which allows people to tackle a task simply
because they are intrinsically interested in solving the problem (Gabriel et al., 2023). According
to this theory of creativity, expertise denotes the technical, procedural, and intellectual
knowledge one possesses whereas, creative-thinking skills determine the extent to which an
individual attempt to think imaginatively and flexible. Finally, unlike extrinsic motivation,
intrinsic motivation is the actual inner passion of the individual to solve a problem in question.
Recently, Amabile and Pratt (2016) upgraded the componential theory of creativity into a
dynamic componential model of creativity by developing a holistic framework of the individual,
team, and organizational creativity and innovation. They added that although expertise, creative-
thinking skills, and intrinsic motivation are very important, there are some other very important
boundary conditions which have substantial effects on individual, team, and organizational
creativity and innovation. These conditions include work orientation, meaningful work, and
effect (i.e., emotions).

Objectives of the study

The general objective of this study is to develop a valid measure of creativity

The specific objectives include

1. To examine the reliability of the creativity scale

2. To examine the convergence validity of the scale with Karwowski short scale of creative
self
3. To examine the discriminant validity of the scale with the Rosemberg self-esteem scale

Methodology

Design

The study made use of the survey research design.

9
Population

The population of the study are students in the faculty of Education of the University of Ibadan.

Sample and sampling technique

The study used the two-stage sampling technique. At the first stage 2 department was randomly
selected from the faculty of education and from the department 15 students each were randomly
selected from the selected departments.

Instrument

The self-developed creativity scale

The self-developed creativity scale is a twenty items questionnaire design using the 5-point
Likert scale format of strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1).

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

The Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem scale is a 10-item scale that measures global self-worth by
measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self. The scale is believed to be uni-
dimensional. All items are answered using a 5-point Likert scale format ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 are reverse scored. Give “Strongly Disagree” 1
point, “Disagree” 2 points, “Agree” 3 points, and “Strongly Agree” 4 points. Sum scores for all
ten items. Keep scores on a continuous scale. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem.

Short Scale of Creative Self

The Short Scale of Creative self was developed by Karwowski (2011). The scale is made up of
11 items that are to be rated on a five-point scale of definitely not, somewhat not, neither yes or
no, somewhat yes and definitely yes. Some of the items – 3,4,56,8, and 9 measured creative self-
efficacy, items 1,2,7,10 and 11 measured creative personal identity. Alternatively, a Creative
Self-concept scale may be scores averaging all 11 items.

Method of data analysis

The method of data analysis used include Cronbach’s alpha, convergency validity and
discriminant validity

10
Result and Discussion

Research Question 1: Is the creativity scale reliable?

Table 1: Cronbach Alpha test

Case Processing Summary Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
N % Alpha N of Items
Cases Valid 30 100.0 .762 29
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

The table 1 shows that the scale has a cronbach’s alpha value of .762 and this shows that
it is reliable and that the items on the scale consistently measure the same thing.

Research Question 2: Does the creativity scale converge with the Karwowski short scale of
creative self?

Table 2: Convergence validity between the developed scale and the Karwowski short scale of
creative self

Variables Mean Std. Deviation N r df sig

self_developed 73.0333 10.94653 30 .490 28 .006

Karwoski 27.4000 4.95219 30

Table 2 shows that there is a significant relationship between the self-developed scale and
karwoski’s short scale of creative self; r(28) = .490, p < 0.05. This shows that there is significant

11
relationship between the two instruments and this implies that both scales are related and could
work in place of each other.

Research Question 3: Does the creativity scale diverge from Rosemberg self-esteem scale?

Table 3: Convergence validity between the developed scale and the Karwowski short scale of
creative self

Variables Mean Std. Deviation N r df sig

Self-developed 73.0333 10.94653 30 -.189 28 .317

Rosenberg Self- 30.6667 10.78739 30

esteem scale

Table 3 shows that there is no significant relationship between the self-developed

creativity scale and the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale; r(28) = -.189, p > .317. This shows that
both scales do not have any similarity whatsoever and could not work in the place of each other.

Discussion

The findings showed that the reliability analysis using Cronbach’s Alpha yielded a value of
0.762 for the creativity scale. This indicates good internal consistency, suggesting that the items
on the scale consistently measure the same construct. Researchers can have confidence in using
this scale to assess creativity. Also, the findings showed that the self-developed creativity scale
shows a significant positive relationship with the Karwowski short scale of creative self (r =
0.490, p < 0.05). This finding suggests that the two instruments are related and could be used
interchangeably to measure creative self-concept. In contrast, there is no significant relationship
between the self-developed creativity scale and the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (r = -0.189, p >
0.317). These scales do not share any similarity, indicating that they assess different constructs.
Researchers should avoid substituting one for the other when assessing creativity or self-esteem.

Conclusion

12
In conclusion, the results of this study provide valuable insights into the reliability and validity of
the creativity scale used. The high Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.762 signifies strong
internal consistency among the items, affirming the reliability of the scale in measuring creativity
consistently. This finding enhances researchers' confidence in utilizing this scale for assessing
creativity in various contexts. Moreover, the significant positive correlation between the self-
developed creativity scale and the Karwowski short scale of creative self-further validates the
former's utility. The observed relationship suggests that these instruments tap into similar aspects
of creative self-concept, implying that they could be effectively interchanged in research settings
to measure creative self-concept. However, the absence of a significant relationship between the
self-developed creativity scale and the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale highlights the importance of
discerning between constructs. The lack of correlation indicates that these scales assess distinct
psychological constructs, emphasizing the need for researchers to exercise caution when
substituting one for the other in studies related to creativity or self-esteem.

Recommendation

Based on the findings, there should be future researches that include conducting further
validation studies to confirm the reliability and validity of the creativity scale across diverse
populations and contexts. Longitudinal research is advised to explore the stability of creative
self-concept over time.

13
The Developed Creativity Scale

S/N Items SA A UD D SD
1. My expertise allows me to approach problems from unique
angles
2. I lack specialized knowledge and skills related to my field of
study.
3. I find it challenging to explore different solutions to a
problem.
4. I often make connections between seemingly unrelated
ideas.
5. I find analogies from other domains helpful in my creative
thinking.
6. I feel unmotivated to engage in creative tasks.
7. I am genuinely interested in exploring new ideas and
concepts.
8. I feel motivated to engage in creative tasks even without
external rewards.
9. Collaborating with others enhances my creativity.
10. Constructive feedback from peers and teachers fuels my
creative process.
11. I feel supported by my learning environment to express my
creative ideas.
12. I am willing to take risks when experimenting with new
approaches.
13. I embrace uncertainty as part of the creative process.
14. I am open to challenging traditional norms and conventions.

14
 15. I keep refining my ideas even when faced with obstacles.
16. Setbacks do not discourage me; I see them as opportunities
to learn.
17. I am committed to seeing my creative projects through to
completion.
18. I believe my ideas are unique and distinct from others’.
19. I strive to avoid clichés and common solutions.
20. I value novelty and innovation in my work.

Rosemberg Self-Esteem Scale

S/N Items SA A UD D SD
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself
2. At times I think I am no good at all
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of
6. I certainly feel useless at times
7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on equal plane with
others
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself

15
Short Scale of Creative Self

Instruction:

Below you will find several sentences used by people to describe themselves. Please decide to
what extent each of these statements describes you. There are no good or wrong answers.

S/N Items Definitely Somewha Neither Somewhat Definitely

not t not yes or yes yes
no
1. I think I am a creative person
2. My creativity is important for
who I am
3. I know I can efficiently solve
even complicated problems
4. I trust my creative abilities
5. My imagination and ingenuity
distinguish me from my friends
6. Many times, I have proved that I
can cope with difficult situations
7. Being a creative person is
important to me
8. I am sure I can deal with
problems requiring creative
thinking
9. I am good at proposing original
solutions to problems

16
 10. Creative is an important part of
myself
11. Ingenuity is a characteristic that
is important to me

References

Adil, M.S. and Ab Hamid, K.B., 2019. The relationships between leader creativity expectations,
intrinsic motivation, and creative performance. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 2(2),
pp.58-68.

Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G., 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
organizational behavior, 36, pp.157-183.

Drapeau, P., 2014. Sparking student creativity: Practical ways to promote innovative thinking
and problem solving. ASCD.
Gabriel, F., Marrone, R. and van Broekhoven, K., 2023. Teaching and learning for creativity in
science and mathematics. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 393-405).
Academic Press.

Karwowski, M., 2011. Short scale of creative self. Retreived from: https://osf.
io/j72w5/download.

Kharkhurin, A.V., 2014. Creativity. 4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity

research journal, 26(3), pp.338-352.

Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A., Jones, C. and Matlay, H., 2014. When did you last predict a good
idea? Exploring the case of assessing creativity through learning outcomes. Industry and
Higher Education, 28(6), pp.399-410.

Rosenberg, M., 1965. Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Religion and Health.

17
Amabile, T.M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative
writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2) 393-399. doi: 10.1037/002
2-3514.48.2.393.

Dweck, C.S., 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house.

Karwowski, M., 2014. Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology

of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), p.62.

Avila, B.N., 2018. Creating Divergence: Examining The Development of Creativity Through
Executive Function, Language and Mindset. University of Missisippi. Unpublished
dissertation. Retrieved from: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2146&context=etd

O’Neill, S.A., 2011. Developing a young musician’s growth mindset: The role of motivation,
self-theories, and resiliency. Music and the mind: Essays in honour of John Sloboda,
pp.31-46.

18