Semantic Distance and the Alternate Uses Task: Recommendations for Reliable Automated Assessment of Originality

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Creativity Research Journal Pub Date : 2022-01-24 DOI:10.1080/10400419.2022.2025720
R. Beaty, D. Johnson, Daniel C. Zeitlen, Boris Forthmann
{"title":"Semantic Distance and the Alternate Uses Task: Recommendations for Reliable Automated Assessment of Originality","authors":"R. Beaty, D. Johnson, Daniel C. Zeitlen, Boris Forthmann","doi":"10.1080/10400419.2022.2025720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Semantic distance is increasingly used for automated scoring of originality on divergent thinking tasks, such as the Alternate Uses Task (AUT). Despite some psychometric support for semantic distance – including positive correlations with human creativity ratings – additional work is needed to optimize its reliability and validity, including identifying maximally reliable items (objects) for AUT administration. We identify a set of 13 AUT items based on a systematic item-selection strategy (belt, brick, broom, bucket, candle, clock, comb, knife, lamp, pencil, pillow, purse, sock). This item-set resulted in acceptable reliability estimates and was found to be moderately related to both human creativity ratings and a creative personality factor (Study 1). These results replicated in a new sample of Participants (Study 2). We conclude with the following recommendations for reliable and valid assessment of AUT originality using semantic distance: 1) make choices based on theoretical/practical considerations, 2) administer (some or all of) the 13 items from this study; 3) if other items must be used, avoid compound words as AUT items (e.g., guitar string); 4) include as many AUT items as time permits; 5) instruct participants to “be creative”; and 6) address fluency confounds that conflate idea quantity and quality (e.g., via max scoring).","PeriodicalId":48144,"journal":{"name":"Creativity Research Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"245 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Creativity Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2025720","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: 14

Abstract

ABSTRACT Semantic distance is increasingly used for automated scoring of originality on divergent thinking tasks, such as the Alternate Uses Task (AUT). Despite some psychometric support for semantic distance – including positive correlations with human creativity ratings – additional work is needed to optimize its reliability and validity, including identifying maximally reliable items (objects) for AUT administration. We identify a set of 13 AUT items based on a systematic item-selection strategy (belt, brick, broom, bucket, candle, clock, comb, knife, lamp, pencil, pillow, purse, sock). This item-set resulted in acceptable reliability estimates and was found to be moderately related to both human creativity ratings and a creative personality factor (Study 1). These results replicated in a new sample of Participants (Study 2). We conclude with the following recommendations for reliable and valid assessment of AUT originality using semantic distance: 1) make choices based on theoretical/practical considerations, 2) administer (some or all of) the 13 items from this study; 3) if other items must be used, avoid compound words as AUT items (e.g., guitar string); 4) include as many AUT items as time permits; 5) instruct participants to “be creative”; and 6) address fluency confounds that conflate idea quantity and quality (e.g., via max scoring).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语义距离和替代使用任务:独创性可靠自动评估的建议
摘要语义距离越来越多地用于对发散思维任务的独创性进行自动评分,如交替使用任务(AUT)。尽管对语义距离有一些心理测量支持,包括与人类创造力评级的正相关,但还需要做更多的工作来优化其可靠性和有效性,包括为AUT管理确定最大可靠的项目(对象)。我们根据系统的物品选择策略(皮带、砖块、扫帚、水桶、蜡烛、时钟、梳子、刀、灯、铅笔、枕头、钱包、袜子)确定了一组13件AUT物品。该项目集得出了可接受的可靠性估计,并被发现与人类创造力评级和创造性人格因素适度相关(研究1)。这些结果在新的参与者样本中得到了复制(研究2)。最后,我们提出了以下使用语义距离对AUT独创性进行可靠有效评估的建议:1)基于理论/实践考虑做出选择,2)管理(部分或全部)本研究的13个项目;3) 如果必须使用其他项目,则避免使用复合词作为AUT项目(例如,吉他弦);4) 在时间允许的情况下包括尽可能多的AUT项目;5) 指导参与者“要有创造性”;以及6)解决将想法数量和质量混为一谈的流利性混淆(例如通过最大得分)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
52
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.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Drawings’ Creativity: Synchrony Effects on Rater Bias and the Mediating Role of Emotional Arousal Inaugural Issue of CRJ as the Journal of the Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity: Introduction to Volume 2 of the Special Issue Creativity in the West and the East: A Meta-Analysis of Cross-Cultural Differences Narcissism Mediates the Relationship Between Helicopter Parenting and Divergent Creativity, but Not Convergent Creativity Dissociating Semantic Integration and Inhibitory Control in the Remote Associates Test: A tDCS-EEG Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1