The Development of a Scientific Creativity Test in Science for High School Students of Northeastern Princess Chulabhorn Science High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of the research were to: (1) create a scientific creativity measure for high school students; (2) examine the quality of the science creativity scale of the created test; (3) establish a benchmark for scientific creativity scores for high school students; and (4) study a scientific creativity level of students in the senior high school of the three Northeastern Princess Chulabhorn Science High schools. Data were collected in three phases. The first test was implemented with a sample of 96 students to determine the appropriate time to complete a scientific creativity measurement. The second stage, the test was used with a sample of 96 students to find out the Index of difficulty (P), Discrimination(r), and Reliability of the whole scientific creativity scale. For the last phase of the study, a sample of 360 students was tested to create the norms of the science creativity scale for high school students and to study their scientific creativity. The results of this research were as follows: 1) the scientific creativity test for high school students consists of 8 questions. The measurement covers 3 areas: originality, flexible thinking, and scientific imagination. The optimal measurement time is at 7 minutes. It was found that the created test had the Index of Congruence (IOC) ranging from 0.60 - 0.82; 2) the Index difficulty (P) was from 0.387 to 0.677, the discrimination (r) was from 0.208 to 0.448, and the confidence (α) of the conceptual aspects: originality, flexibility, and scientific imagination were 0.747, 0.704, and 0.786 respectively; 3) the normalized T-score of scientific creativity for upper secondary school students had 5 levels of creativity: very high, high, moderate, low, and very low; 4) the study of scientific creativity level of students in the upper secondary level of 360 students from three Northeastern Princess Chulabhorn Science High Schools indicated that the students' scientific creativity was at a low, moderate, high, very low and very high level (30.56, 29.45, 26.94, 8.61 and 4.44 percentage respectively).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".