{"title":"Empirics vs. art theory: Exploring a factor structure of pictorial expression based on contemporary artworks","authors":"Kerstin Schoch, Thomas Ostermann","doi":"10.1080/10400419.2023.2272104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe RizbA scale combines psychometrics and art theory and enables a measurement of pictorial expression. This study explores its factor structure and a potential gap between theory and empirics. A sample of 275 pictorial works by artists and nonprofessionals was rated by 179 art experts. Three CFA path models were specified: models A and B based on the empirical results of previous studies, C on the theory of the initial study. Model C was additionally tested on a combined dataset. A and B did not converge, C was associated with fit indices as follows: RSMEA = .122, CFI = .712, TLI = .679, SRMR = .135, for the combined dataset: RSMEA = .086, CFI = .740, TLI = .696, SRMR = .084. Only model C partly suggests an acceptable fit. The results speak to a methodological gap between empirics and theory, that might be solved by a postdisciplinary measurement model.KEYWORDS: art theoryconfirmatory factor analysisformal picture analysispictorial expressionvisual art AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge Thomas Gengenbach for providing theoretical and practical support regarding IT. Thanks also to Rebecca Kahn for the feedback on the manuscript.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Ethics approvalThe authors received a positive vote of the Ethics Committee for Creative Arts Therapies at the Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Germany (Reference number 19C27J101W).Abbreviations API=Application programming interfaceCFA=Confirmatory factor analysisCFI=Comparative fit indexdf=Degrees of freedomMLE=Maximum likelihood estimateMLR=Robust maximum likelihood estimatorPAFA=Principal axis factor analysisPCA=Principal component analysisPHP=PHP: Hypertext PreprocessorRizbA=(Rating instrument for two-dimensional pictorial works) Ratinginstrument für zweidimensionale bildnerische ArbeitenRMSEA=Root mean square error of approximationSRMR=Standardized root-mean-square residualTLI=Tucker-Lewis Index","PeriodicalId":48144,"journal":{"name":"Creativity Research Journal","volume":"224 23","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Creativity Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2272104","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe RizbA scale combines psychometrics and art theory and enables a measurement of pictorial expression. This study explores its factor structure and a potential gap between theory and empirics. A sample of 275 pictorial works by artists and nonprofessionals was rated by 179 art experts. Three CFA path models were specified: models A and B based on the empirical results of previous studies, C on the theory of the initial study. Model C was additionally tested on a combined dataset. A and B did not converge, C was associated with fit indices as follows: RSMEA = .122, CFI = .712, TLI = .679, SRMR = .135, for the combined dataset: RSMEA = .086, CFI = .740, TLI = .696, SRMR = .084. Only model C partly suggests an acceptable fit. The results speak to a methodological gap between empirics and theory, that might be solved by a postdisciplinary measurement model.KEYWORDS: art theoryconfirmatory factor analysisformal picture analysispictorial expressionvisual art AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge Thomas Gengenbach for providing theoretical and practical support regarding IT. Thanks also to Rebecca Kahn for the feedback on the manuscript.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Ethics approvalThe authors received a positive vote of the Ethics Committee for Creative Arts Therapies at the Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Germany (Reference number 19C27J101W).Abbreviations API=Application programming interfaceCFA=Confirmatory factor analysisCFI=Comparative fit indexdf=Degrees of freedomMLE=Maximum likelihood estimateMLR=Robust maximum likelihood estimatorPAFA=Principal axis factor analysisPCA=Principal component analysisPHP=PHP: Hypertext PreprocessorRizbA=(Rating instrument for two-dimensional pictorial works) Ratinginstrument für zweidimensionale bildnerische ArbeitenRMSEA=Root mean square error of approximationSRMR=Standardized root-mean-square residualTLI=Tucker-Lewis Index
期刊介绍:
Creativity Research Journal publishes high-quality, scholarly research capturing the full range of approaches to the study of creativity--behavioral, clinical, cognitive, crosscultural, developmental, educational, genetic, organizational, psychoanalytic, psychometrics, and social. Interdisciplinary research is also published, as is research within specific domains (e.g., art, science) and research on critical issues (e.g., aesthetics, genius, imagery, imagination, incubation, insight, intuition, metaphor, play, problem finding and solving). Integrative literature reviews and theoretical pieces that appreciate empirical work are extremely welcome, but purely speculative articles are not published. Readers are encouraged to send commentaries, comments, and evaluative book reviews.