MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401920683 · doi:10.21449/ijate.1475980

The mental imagery scale for art students: Building and validating a short form

2024· article· en· W4401920683 on OpenAlexaff
Handan Narin, Hatice Cigdem Bulut

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityScale (ratio)PsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Construct (python library)CognitionMental imageContent validityConstruct validityVisual arts educationCriterion validityComputer scienceCognitive psychologyApplied psychologyMathematics educationPsychometricsSocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental imagery is a vital cognitive skill that significantly influences how reality is perceived while creating art. Its multifaceted nature reveals various dimensions of creative expression, amplifying the inherent complexities of measuring it. This study aimed to shorten the Mental Imagery Scale in Artistic Creativity (MISAC) via the Ant Colony Optimization algorithm (ACO), a metaheuristic methodology for developing psychometrically robust brief scales. Answering 63 items in the original version of MISAC demands a higher cognitive load and, consequently, more time. Therefore, our goal was to shorten it while preserving its psychometric properties. In this study, responses to the MISAC were obtained from 500 undergraduate students enrolled in an art education program. The items on the short form of the MISAC were selected based on pre-specified validity criteria and content representability. The 28-item short form of MISAC demonstrated comparable performance to the original version regarding construct validity, criteria-related validity, and reliability coefficients. Moreover, strict invariance was attained across both gender groups in the validation process of the short form. These results highlight the utility of the shortened version of the MISAC as a valid measure with minimal loss of information of scores compared to the full version.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.463 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in EducationSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207