| Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. |
2008 |
30377 |
Divergent thinking is central to the study of individual differences in creativity, but the traditional scoring systems (assigning points for infrequent responses and summing the points) face well-known problems. After critically reviewing past scori... |
| Assessment of Score Dependability of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales Using Generalizability Analysis |
2010 |
2366 |
To investigate the reliability of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales, this study applied generalizability analysis with two college student samples who completed the scales at two time points. The results indicated that the Revised Social Anhedonia Scal... |
| Brief assessment of schizotypy: Developing short forms of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales |
2011 |
3641 |
The Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales—the Perceptual Aberration, Magical Ideation, Physical Anhedonia, and Revised Social Anhedonia Scales—have been used extensively since their development in the 1970s and 1980s. Based on psychometric analyses using item ... |
| The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. |
2009 |
4955 |
Given curiosity’s fundamental role in motivation, learning, and well-being, we sought to refine the measurement of trait curiosity with an improved version of the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; [Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (... |
| Psychometric Properties of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales in an Undergraduate Sample: Classical Test Theory, Item Response Theory, and Differential Item Functioning |
2011 |
3905 |
The Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales are widely used for assessing schizotypy in nonclinical and clinical samples. However, they were developed using classical test theory (CTT) and have not had their psychometric properties examined with more sophisticat... |
| Rejoinder: The madness to our method: Some thoughts on divergent thinking |
2008 |
3013 |
In this reply, the authors examine the madness to their method in light of the comments. Overall, the authors agree broadly with the comments; many of the issues will be settled only by future research. The authors disagree, though, that past researc... |