Validating the questionnaire of factors influencing creative process for RN-BSN students in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to validate the questionnaire of factors influencing creative process as a valid and reliable instrument. The previous study was to generate 100 items for a creative process based on the content analysis of qualitative data from interviewing 18 Taiwanese nurses who received awards during 2009-2010 for developing creative nursing products. The content validity of the questionnaire for creative process was assured by having it evaluated by 5 experts and through discussion with our research team. A pilot study was tested with 30 RN-BSN students, and the questionnaire was revised to comprise 50 items that focused on the factors influencing creative process. A formal survey of nursing schools was conducted using the 50 items of the factors influencing creative process by selecting RN-BSN students from various nursing programs in Taiwan. This study was conducted from August 2012 to July 2013. Following Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), a total of 33 items of the factors influencing creative process were questions assessing the characteristics (9 items), abilities (10 items), barriers (7 items) , and motivation (7 items). Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .86 to .92 for each scale, and the total explanation of variance ranged from 52.95% to 65.4%. Following the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), 27 items-4 subscales on the factors influencing creative process were indicated as a validated model with all χ 2 / p > 0.05, GFI > 0.9, RMR < 0.5, RMSEA < 0.5, AGFI > 0.9. The questionnaire aimed at evaluating the influencing factors of creative process, due to its good validity and reliability, was considered as a concise and useful tool. The factors influencing creative process should be able to measure four variables comprising of characters, abilities, barriers, and motivation changed over time at difference levels following the teaching course in their further education of creative thinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".