CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

1
CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT
Thesigan Nadarajan
Assumption University, Bangkok
Creativity Selected Elements Questionnaire herewith shall be called (CSEQ) as a creative
psychological assessment instrument was developed on the theoretical foundations of “Creative
Product Semantic Scale” by Besemer & Quin (1987) and the “Propulsion Model” by Sternberg,
Kaufman & Pretz (2002). It covered the four innate creativity elements of: Originality, Ingenuity,
Resolution, Synthesis and four external creativity elements of Replication, Redefinition,
Reconstruction, and Reinitiation. CSEQ was applied to study 900 students from three colleges
(Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology) of Nueva Ecija University of Science
and Technology herewith shall be called (NEUST) for: H1o: The significant relationships
between the selected student demographic variables, namely: age, gender, study preference, year
of study, GPA, student reasons for studying their program, and student’s linguistic ability with the
eight creativity elements; H2o: The significant relationships between the selected family
demographic variables, namely: parental family status, family income, and family educational
background with the eight creativity elements. Highlights from the findings of the demographic,
correlational, MANOVA and reliability statistical analyses were: 1) Age, gender, year of study,
student reasons for studying their program, student’s linguistic ability had both positive and
inverse significant relationships to/for creativity; 2) Mother’s educational background and family
income had significant positive and inverse relationships to/for creativity. CSEQ could be: 1) Used
for new student orientation for assessment of student creativity that would enable the development
of creative leadership activities, projects and programs; 2) In the design, implementation and
assessment of creative educational content, methods, strategies and presentations within NEUST
environment; 3) In developing creative-centered experimental hubs for creative designs and
trainings within NEUST environment for those identified with creative forte.
The topic of this current research,
“Creativity Selected Elements Questionnaire
(CSEQ): A Creative Assessment Instrument
for Interactive And Creative Learning
Environment,” was the result of the
researcher’s interest in the study of creativity
in the context of interactive and creative
learning environment. Vernon (1978) notes
that creativity was a buzzword in Educational
Psychology as far back as 1978. It is not
something new in the field of education.
Besides the educational environment, it was
only recently that creativity was explained in
terms of innovation in the work place which
is now becoming crucial for organizational
adaptation and survival. Recognition of
creativity in educational environment and
work place has combined to highlight the
significance of creativity in economic value
and social influence in varied areas of
humanity’s endeavors and achievements that
has evolved to become a need rather than a
want justifying this current study involving
CSEQ, an assessment instrument for
interactive and creative learning environment
(Palmon, 2011).
CSEQ as a creative psychological
assessment instrument was developed on the
theoretical foundations of “Creative Product
Semantic Scale” by Besemer & O’ Quin
(1987) and the “Propulsion Model” by
Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz (2002). It
covered the four innate creativity elements of:

2
Originality, Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis
and four external creativity elements of
Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction,
and Reinitiation.
CSEQ was applied to study 900 students
from three colleges (Engineering,
Architecture and Information Technology) of
NEUST for testing: H1o: There are
significant relationships between the selected
student demographic variables, namely: age,
gender, study preference, year of study, GPA,
student reasons for studying their program,
and student’s linguistic ability with the eight
creativity elements; H2o: There are
significant relationships between the selected
family demographic variables, namely:
parental family status, family income, and
family educational background with the eight
creativity elements.
Definition of Terms
The definition of terms was provided for the
purpose facilitating a clearer understanding.
NEUST refers to Nueva Ecija University of
Science and Technology which is publicly
funded and is located in Cabanatuan city,
Philippines. CSEQ refers to the Creativity
Selected Elements Questionnaire. Positive
Psychology was envisioned by Seligman and
Csikszentmihalyi (2000) as a means to
motivate a change in the fixation with
repairing the “worst things in life to building
positive qualities.” Strengths and Virtues refer
to the six domains of core virtues, namely:
Wisdom & Knowledge; Courage; Humanity
and Love; Justice; Temperance and
Transcendence. Selected Creativity Elements
refers to the eight innate and external
elements of creativity namely: Originality,
Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis, Replication,
Redefinition, Reconstruction, and
Reinitiation. Propulsion model refers to the
external criterion as proposed by Sternberg,
Kaufman & Pretz (2002). Innate creativity
refers to creativity elements of Originality,
Ingenuity, Resolution and Synthesis. External
creativity refers to creativity elements of
Replication, Redefinition, Reconstruction,
and Reinitiation. Originality was defined by
Stokes (1999) as a kind of novelty that was
useful, valuable and generative. Ingenuity,
refers to smartness, originality and innovative
in generating one-of-kind solutions for
problems and needs (Peterson and Seligman,
2004). Resolution allows for the creation of
something which is valuable, logical, useful,
and understandable (Besemer & O’Quin,
1987). Synthesis refers to links that are
constructed between two or more apparently
separate ideas (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz,
2002). Replication refers to the known which
is transferred to a new setting” (Sternberg,
Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). Redefinition refers
to the known which is extended in a new
direction (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz,
2002). Reconstruction refers to the new life
that is breathed into an approach previously
abandoned (Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz,
2002). Reinitiation refers to the thinking that
begins at a radically different point from the
current one and takes off in a new direction
(Sternberg, Kaufman & Pretz, 2002).
Literature Review
In the literature review, the researcher
examined the theoretical justifications for: 1)
Contribution of positive psychology through
the six strengths and virtues domains to the
study of creativity (Peterson & Seligman,
2004); 2) The selection of eight creativity
elements used for the development of CSEQ
derived from the “Creative Product Semantic
Scale” by Besemer & Quin (1987) and the
“Propulsion Model” by Sternberg, Kaufman,
& Pretz (2002); 3) The use of each of the
eight elements of creativity (Originality,
Ingenuity, Resolution, Synthesis, Replication,

3
Redefinition, Reconstruction, and
Reinitiation) derived from (Sternberg,
Kaufman & Pretz, 2002); 4) The study of the
demographic variables of the two hypotheses
(Piers, 1968; Kuhn & Holling, 2009).
Method
Research Design
The current study is a causal comparative
research that incorporates descriptive and
inferential analyses methodology to achieve
its objectives.
Participants
A total of 900 participants from three
colleges (Engineering, Architecture and
Information Technology) of NEUST
comprised the study sample. The breakdown
of student demographics consisted of 65.3%
(n=588) male students and 34.7% (N=312)
females. Their ages ranged from 15 to 32
years, with a mean age of 19 years. The
samples for study preferences included
abstract, social sciences, religion, science,
arts, technical and math. In terms of ethnicity,
they were all Pilipino and this was why
ethnicity was not included as a variable in the
demographics as statically it would be
meaningless. A purposive sampling technique
was utilized for data collection as the research
was targeted for the three colleges with seven
study preferences. Participants gave informed
consent prior to answering the questionnaires
which were voluntary and involved no
compensation. Strict confidentiality was
observed to protect privacy
Instrumentation
CSEQ was divided into two sections:
demographics and question items. The
demographic sections were further divided
into: 1) Student; 2) Family; 3) Family
Education Background; 4) Reasons for
Choosing the Program and 5) Student’s
Linguistic Ability categories.
The questions items section consisted of a
Likert scale of 40 items with a five point
responses (1 – Not At All, 2- Seldom, 3 –
Uncertain, 4 – Often, 5 – All the Time).
The item coding consisted of five items for
each of the eight scales of: Originality (items
2, 4, 18, 14, 23); Ingenuity (items 5, 17, 32,
28, 36); Resolution (7, 21, 25, 19, 34);
Synthesis (8, 24, 12, 37, 27); Replication
(items 9, 31, 38, 16, 33); Redefinition (items
10, 29, 35, 22,39); Reconstruction (items 6,
40, 13, 26, 30); and Reinitiation (items 11, 15,
20, 3, 1).
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection process was carried out
in two stages: the pilot study and the actual
data collection. The pilot study of 100 %
(n=300) cases was conducted on forty items.
A Cronbach alpha of .886 (.89) was obtained
which confirmed the participant’s
comprehension of the scale items.
Actual Data Collection
For the actual data collection, a total of
1,050 CSEQ questionnaires were distributed
to the three colleges, each receiving 350
copies. Out of the 1,050 CSEQ questionnaires
were distributed, only 920 were returned to
the researcher. The rest (130 questionnaires)
were either lost or unaccounted for at the time
of the collection. When the 920
questionnaires were individually inspected for
errors, 20 questionnaires were found to be
non-usable due to respondents’ error in
answering. Only 900 valid questionnaires
were utilized for data analysis.
Data Analysis

4
The valid 900 questionnaires (n= 900) were
statistically analyzed for Frequency,
Percentile, Reliability, Pearson Correlation,
MANOVA gender differences output.
Results
Demographic Analysis
The demographics profile of respondents
consisted of two categories namely, student
demographics backgrounds and family
demographics backgrounds. In terms of
student demographics backgrounds, the
sample consisted of 900 students; 65.3%
(n=588) male students and 34.7% (N=312)
females. Their ages ranged from 15 to 32
years, with a mean age of 19 years. In terms
of ethnicity, they were all Pilipino and this
was why ethnicity was not included as a
variable in the demographics as statically it
would be meaningless. Their study
preferences in an ascending order were as
follows: 3.4% (N=31) abstract, 14.4%
(N=130) social sciences, 6.7% (N=60)
religion, 14.4% (N=130) science, 16.6%
(N=149) arts, 25.7% (N=231) technical and
28.8% (N=259) math. In terms of year of
study in ascending order, there were: 18.2%
(N=164) 1st
year, 22.4% (N=202) 2nd
year,
27.8% (N=250) 3rd
year, 21.4% (N=193) 4th
year, 9.7% (N=87) 5th
year and .4% (N=4) 6th
year students. For GPA in ascending order:
6.3% (N=57) were 1.0, 8.0% (N=72) were
1.25, 8.2% (N=74) were 1.50, 8.8% (N=79)
were 1.75, 16.1% (N=145) were 2.0, 16.4%
(N=148) were 2.25, 19.0% (N=171) were
2.50, 16.4% (N=148) were 2.25, 19.0%
(N=171) were 2.50, 12.7% (N=114) were
2.75, 4.1 (N=37) were 3.0 and .3% (N=3)
were 5.0. Their reasons for their choice of
programs were: 26.1% (N=235) considered
them to be their field of interest, 15.8%
(N=142) had related basic knowledge /
experience, 19.1% (N=172) were graduates in
those programs, 26.0% (N=234) saw them as
an opportunity to study and work abroad,
10.8% (N=97) saw them as opportunity to
begin and manage their own businesses and
2.2% (N=20) chose because they felt they
couldn’t find jobs for lesser qualifications. In
terms of linguistics, for spoken languages:
2.3% (N=21) spoke 1, 65.0% (N=585) spoke
2, 9.1% (N=262) spoke 3, 1.3% (N=12) spoke
4 and 2.2% (N=20) spoke 5. In terms of
linguistics, for written languages: 3.8%
(N=34) wrote 1), 68.0% (N=612) wrote 2,
24.4% (N=220) wrote 3, 1.9% (N=17) wrote
4, 1.8% (N=16) wrote 5 and .1% (N=1) wrote
6. For family demographics backgrounds, the
areas covered were parental family status in
ascending order: 91.0% (N=819) were
married, 6.9% (N=62) were separated, .2%
(N=2) were divorced, 1.6% (N=14) were
remarried and .3% (N=3) were orphaned. For
family income in pesos in descending order:
11.4% (N=103) earned >25,000.00, 14.0%
(N=126) earned 20,000 to 25,000.00, 17.0
(N=153) earned 15,000.00 to 20,000.00,
19.7% (N=177) earned 10,000.00 to
15,000.00, 22.1% (N=199) earned 5,000.00 to
10,000.00, 15.8% (N=142) earned < 5000.00
and .1% (N=1) earned 64.00. In terms of
family educational backgrounds for fathers:
5.1% (N=46) were elementary levels, 3.9%
(N=35) were elementary graduates, 8.0%
(N=72) were high school levels, 20.9%
(N=188) were high school graduates, 27.4%
(N=247) were college levels and 34.7%
(N=312) were college graduates. For family
educational backgrounds for mothers: 4.3%
(N=39) were elementary levels, 4.4% (N=40)
were elementary graduates, 7.7% (N=69)
were high school levels, 24.9% (N=224) were
high school graduates, 20.2% (N=182) were
college levels and 38.4% (N=346) were
college graduates.
Reliability Analyses
Prior to computing the eight scales of
CSEQ, Reliability analysis was conducted on

5
the items that represented these scales. The
Cronbach alpha coefficients were: Originality
(.48), Ingenuity (.50), Resolution (.50),
Synthesis (.37) and four external creativity
elements of Replication (.44), Redefinition
(.49), Reconstruction (.35), and Reinitiation
(.32). The computed Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients for all eight scales were a low to
high and ranged from .32 to .50. This was
expected given the small number of items
representing each scale. The computed
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the eight
scales of CSEQ was .84. Items are considered
internally consistent if their corrected item-
total correlations (I-T) are ≥ .33 which
represent approximately 10% of the variance
of the total scale accounted for in the analysis.
The corrected item - total correlations (I-T)
were from a low (.47) to high (.64) which
clearly proved internal consistency of the
eight scales of CSEQ that justified its use.
Hypothesis Testing
The results of the two hypotheses testing
were as follows:
H1o: There are significant relationships
between the selected student demographic
variables, namely: age, gender, study
preference, year of study, GPA, student
reasons for studying their program, and
student’s linguistic ability with the eight
creativity elements.
A Correlational analysis of the selected
student demographic of: age, study
preference, year of study, GPA, student
reasons for studying their program, and
student’s linguistic ability with the eight
creativity elements found that: 1) Age had
positive significant relationship with
Replication (r=.088, p<.05); 2) Year of Study
had an inverse significance relationship with
originality (r=-.077, p<.05) and redefinition
(r=-.076, p<.05); 3) Student reasons for
studying their program had positive
significant relationship with Synthesis
(r=.067, p<.05); 4) Student’s linguistic ability
(spoken and written language) had positive
significant relationship with Synthesis
(r=.067, p<.05), (r=.075, p<.05) and
Reinitiation (r=.087, p<.05);
A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was employed to test for gender
difference among the eight creativity
elements. The analysis yielded significant
overall gender effect among the eight
creativity elements, multivariate Pillai F Pillai
F (8,890)=2.71, p<.05. However, follow-up
tests of between-subject effects yielded
significant male gender effects for the
creative element of originality F(1,897)=4.91,
p<.05; ingenuity (1,897)=4.70, p<.05;
Replication F(1,897)=7.50, p<.05 and
Reconstruction F(1,897)=11.11, p<.05.
H2o: There are significant relationships
between the selected family demographic
variables, namely: parental family status,
family income, and family educational
background with the eight creativity elements.
A Correlational analysis of the selected
family demographic variables, namely:
parental family status, family income, and
family educational background with the eight
creativity elements found that: 1) Family
educational background (mother’s
background) had a significant positive
relationship with resolution (r=.084, p<.05)
and Redefinition (r=.074, p<.05). 2) Family
income had a significant inverse relationship
with ingenuity (r=-.071, p<.05); resolution
(r=-.077, p<.05); redefinition (r=-.073,
p<.05).
Discussion
The researcher will divide the discussion of
the findings into: 1) Findings from the

6
Demographic analysis; 2) Findings on gender
difference; 3) Findings from Hypothesis one
and 4) Findings from Hypothesis two of this
research.
Demographic Findings
The notable highlight from the demographic
findings is the students’ mean age. The
students’ ages ranged from 15 to 32 years,
with a mean age of 19 years. What does the
mean age indicate? According Stang & Story
(2005), the students are in the adolescent
period that emphasizes on biological,
psychosocial and cognitive changes. And how
does the transitional stage affect adolescence
creativity? Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow (2005)
reports in their longitudinal study that spans
from age 13 to 33, that adolescence are prone
to qualitative accomplishments when
creativity is paired with their preferences.
Thus, the opportunity to inculcate the students
Engineering, Architecture and Information
Technology within NEUST for qualitative
accomplishments by pairing creativity with
their preferences is open by the status of the
students’ mean age.
Discussion of Findings Of Hypothesis 1
Age had positive significant relationship
with Replication (r=.088, p<.05).
What has age to do with creativity element
of replication? Researches related to age and
creativity has pointed out that creativity can
decline or increase with age. (McCrae,
Arenberg, & Costa, 1987). And the creativity
element of replication in which the known is
extended in a new direction, can also decline
or increase with age. In the field of music, it
was found that classical composers were able
to extend their known knowledge in new
directions in terms of “melodic originality,
melodic variation, repertoire popularity,
aesthetic significance, listener accessibility,
performance duration, and thematic size” as
they aged (Simonton, 1991b). Thus, the
students from the colleges of Engineering,
Architecture and Information Technology
within NEUST have the potential to extend
their creativity abilities and skills in new
directions as they mature with age.
Year of Study had an inverse significance
relationship with originality (r=-.077, p<.05)
and redefinition (r=-.076, p<.05).
This specific finding indicates that an
increase in students’ year of study have a
decrease (inverse) in their creativity element
of originality (novelty / generative) and
redefinition (the known is extended in a new
direction) creativity elements. Why? A
possible explanation can be found in an article
by Maisuria (2005) who noted the demise of
creativity (originality / replication) in the
national curriculum of England and Wales
due to the demands of “standardization,
centralization, and vocationalization of
education” that focused on business-education
orientation rather than a student-centered
learning experience. Depending on the year of
study, the students from the colleges of
Engineering, Architecture and Information
Technology within NEUST whose exposure
(lesser / greater) to the demands of
standardization, centralization, and
vocationalization of education may similarly
focus on business-education-orientation and
passing of examinations resulting in the
decline of creativity (originality /
redefinition). Thus, as an institution it is
necessary to strategize towards a balance
between creativity and bureaucratic demands.
Student reasons for studying their program
had positive significant relationship with
Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05).
Student reasons for the choice of their
programs were positively associated with the

7
creativity element of synthesis. Why?
Synthesis involves linking between two or
more apparently separate ideas (Sternberg,
Kaufman & Pretz, 2002). When a student
chose a program, he/she had to determine
between multiple reasons in which each
reason might have multiple advantages and
disadvantages. In making a final decision, the
student had to link (synthesize) the various
reasons, advantages and disadvantages to
derive to a specific reason to support their
final choice. Thus, it is natural for the student
to endorse the creativity element of synthesis.
Student’s linguistic ability (spoken and
written language) had positive significant
relationship with Synthesis (r=.067, p<.05),
(r=.075, p<.05) and Reinitiation (r=.087,
p<.05).
Why was there a positive relationship
between student’s linguistic ability (spoken /
written language) and creativity element of
synthesis? The explanation may be found in
the research done on spoken and written
language. Olofin & Olusoji (2013) concluded
that written and spoken languages are two
different things and requires two different
skills. The students endorsement of synthesis
highlights the fact that different and separate
ideas and skills had to be linked together to
bring about comprehension in communication
(written & spoken). Thus, it was natural for
the students to find a relationship and thereby
endorse their linguistic abilities (written &
spoken) with creativity element of synthesis.
Another important point is that spoken
language in linguistics is always a blending
within a social-cultural background that gives
meanings to words that are used in shared
communications (Samovar & Porter, 1987).
When the students found a positive
relationship between their spoken language
and the creativity element of Reinitiation –
they were endorsing their willingness to
explore shared ideas and meanings in a
different social-cultural linguistic platform
than the one they were in currently. In short,
they are willing to explore new starting points
and directions in their lives (Sternberg, 2006).
Findings On Gender Difference
There was overall gender effect among the
eight creativity elements, multivariate Pillai F
(8,890)=2.71, p<.05. The follow-up tests of
between-subject effects also yielded
significant male gender effects for the
creative element of originality F(1,897)=4.91,
p<.05; ingenuity (1,897)=4.70, p<.05;
Replication F(1,897)=7.50, p<.05 and
Reconstruction F(1,897)=11.11, p<.05. This
finding raises the issue for the need to
develop the female students of the three
colleges who lag behind in the creativity
elements. It is not unusual as females still live
in a ‘Patriarchy world’ (male ruled) in which
the female gender suffers from
discriminations, exploitations and inequalities
which is not helpful for creative
psychological developments (Walby, 1990).
Findings on Hypothesis 2
Family educational background (mother’s
background) had a significant positive
relationship with resolution (r=.084, p<.05)
and Redefinition (r=.074, p<.05).
It is interesting to note that the family
educational background of the fathers had no
significance relationship with the eight
creativity elements. While the family
educational background of the mothers had
significant positive relationships with the
eight creativity elements namely, resolution
and Redefinition. Fasko (2000-2001) in his
article entitled “Education and Creativity” had
pointed out that creativity can be developed
through education as creative activities are

8
instances of learning. This findings together
with the proposal of Fasko establishes that
females living in a Patriarchy world (male-
ruled) can develop creativity through
education. In short, learnings and education
empowers females to be creative (Robinson,
2001).
Family income had a significant inverse
relationship with ingenuity (r=-.071, p<.05);
resolution (r=-.077, p<.05); redefinition (r=-
.073, p<.05.
Kiernan & Mensah (2011) have clearly
shown in their research that parenting styles
and persistent poverty is detrimental to
children’s’ development including creativity.
It is interesting to note in the current research
that an increase in family income (economics)
has an inverse impact on the creativity of
children. How can this be explained? Despite
the abundance of economic resources,
children may decline in ingenuity (smartness,
originality and innovative in generating one-
of-kind solutions for problems and needs) if
they are exposed to poor parenting styles
(Ermisch , Iacovou & Skew, 2011). In short,
though persistent poverty affects creativity -
economic abundance with poor parenting
styles also may lead to a decline in creativity.
Conclusions
The findings of this current research have at
least three immediate uses: 1) It can be used
for new student orientation for assessment of
student strengths that would enable the
development of student leadership activities,
projects and programs; 2) It can be used in the
design, implementation and assessment of
creative educational content, methods,
strategies and presentations within university
environments; 3) It can be used in developing
a creative-centered experimental hubs for
creative designs within a university
environment for those identified with creative
strengths.
Limitations of the Study
The researcher would like to list five
limitations of this study: 1) The single
ethnicity of the sample (Pilipino) only could
limit the objectivity of a wider possible
responses; 2) The CSEQ questionnaire is a
type of self-report measurement which is
dependent on the participants’ truthfulness in
responding to the question items that cannot
be realistically validated. The honesty of the
respondents is accepted in good faith; 3) The
question items can be rephrased and
redesigned according different social-cultural
perspectives that may affect the responses of
the participants. 4) There is the possibility of
additions of more than eight creativity
elements which may prove the present
research to be limited in its coverage of the
scope of creativity elements; 5) There could
be a limitation factor in the findings through
the lack of execution of the CSEQ in other
languages.
Delimitations
The researcher would like to list two
delimitations of this study. 1) CSEQ was
designed for measuring the eight creativity
elements and therefore it cannot be
generalized for other forms of study (i.e.,
personality); 2) The current study was
designed for student population (university
level) and therefore caution must be exercise
in generalizing to other age groups (i.e., high
school).
Due to the above limitations and
delimitations, the findings of this research
should be interpreted with caution. However,
regardless of the above limitations and
delimitations, the study of CSEQ is a new
psychological instrument for measuring the
eight creativity elements but is based on the

9
strong theoretical foundations of established
researches.
Recommendations
The recommendations based on this study
are:
1) Validation of CSEQ instrument within a
multi-cultural population
In order to counter the points of one, three
and five in Limitations, it is recommended
that future research of CSEQ be conducted
within multi-cultural populations.
2) Future studies with different
demographic parameters for generalization
purposes.
In order to counter the point 2 in
Delimitations, it is recommended that future
researches would be designed to include
different demographic parameters (age
groups) for wider generalizations.
Since this research utilizing CSEQ as a
psychological assessment instrument is new,
this research is only meant to be a pilot or
exploratory study for more substantial
research in the area of the eight creativity

10
Reference
Besemer, S.P., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a
judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the
basics (pp. 367-389). Buffalo, NY: Beraly.
Ermisch, J., Iacovou, M & Skew, A. J. (2011).Family Relationships, in Understanding Society,
ed. McFall, S. ESRC, Swindon, UK.
Fasko, D. Jr., (2000-2001). Creativity and Education. Creativity Research Journal, 2000–2001,
Vol. 13, Nos. 3 & 4, 317–327.
Kiernan, K.E. and Mensah, F.K. (2011), Poverty, family resources and children’s early
educational attainment: the mediating role of parenting, British Educational Research
Journal 37(2) 317-336.
Kuhn, J.-T., & Holling, H. (2009). Measurement invariance of divergent thinking across gender,
age, and school forms. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 1-7. doi:
10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.1
Maisuria, A., (2005). The Turbulent Times of Creativity in the National Curriculum. Policy
Futures in Education, Volume 3, Number 2.
McCrae, R. R., Arenberg , D. , & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Declines in divergent thinking with age:
Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-sequential analyses . Psychology and Aging,
2,130-137.
Olofin, Olusoji A., (2013). The Spoken and the Written Language: Confusion between English
Sounds and Letter, Greener
Journal of Art and Humanities, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 009-018. Philip E. Vernon. P. E., (1973).
Creativity: A Current Bandwagon. The Canadian Psychologist Vol. 14, No. 1, January 1973.
Palmon, R. R., (2011). Introduction to Special Issue: The Psychology of Creativity and
Innovation in the Workplace. © 2011 American Psychological Relationship, 1931-
3896/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018586.
Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
Classification. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Relationship.
PIERS, E. V. Adolescent creativity. In J. F. Adams (Ed.), Understanding adolescence. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1968. Pp. 159-182.
Robinson, Ken., (2001) Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. Chichester: Capstone
Publishing Limited.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (Eds.). (1997). Intercultural communication: A reader (eighth
ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

11
Setigman, M. E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2000). Positive Psychology, the American
Psychological Relationship. lnc. 0003-066X/00/$5.00, Voh 55. No. 1. 5 14 DOI: 10.1037//0003-
066X.55.1.5
Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120
classical composers. Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840
Strenberg, R. J., Kaufman, J.C., & Pretz, J.E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion
model of kinds of creative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.
Stokes, P.D. (1999). Novelty. In M.Runco & S. Prtizker (Eds), Encyclopedia of creativity, Vol. 2
(pp. 297-304). NY:Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J., The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 2006, Vol. 18, No. 1,
87–98
Vernon, P. E. 1978. “Review of Creativity Attitude Survey.” See Bachman & Tuckman 1978, pp.
361–62.
Walby, Sylvia, Theorising Patriarchy, Basil Black Well, Oxford, London 1990.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments
among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492.

13
APPENDIX A: CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)

14
CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)
Dear Participants,
The researcher is currently conducting a research on “Sustainable Educational Development:
Identifying, Describing and Comparing Selected Elements of Creativity that may Promote
Educational Excellence,” and gratefully thank you for your voluntary participation in answering
this questionnaire. All information collected will be kept confidential and secured.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Student’s Demographics
Age Gender Study Preference Year of
Study in
College
GPA
Fill in,
________yrs
Check relevant,
Male__ / Female__
Check relevant,
Arts:___/ Science:
____ / Math: ___ /
Technical: ___ /
Abstract: ___ / Social
Sciences: ___ /
Religion: ___
Check
relevant,
1st
:___
2nd
: ___
3rd
: ___
4th
: ___
5th
: ___
Fill in the correct
answer on the
line below,
1.0 / 1.25 / 1.50 /
1.75 / 2.0 / 2.25 /
2.50 / 2.75 / 3.0 /
5.0 / Inc / D

15
Family Demographics
Parental Family Status
Married (M) / Separated (S) /
Divorced (D) / Remarried (R) /
Orphaned (O)
Family Income
1: 25,000 > / 2: 20,000 – 25,000 / 3: 15,000 – 20,000
4: 10,000 – 15,000 / 5: 5,000 – 10,000 / 6: 5,000 <
Strike off the irrelevant,
M / S / D / R / O
Circle your selection,
1: / 2: / 3: / 4: / 5: / 6:
Family Educational Background
Mother
Check,
Father
Check
Elementary Level Elementary Level
Elementary Graduate Elementary Graduate
High School Level High School Level
High School
Graduate
High School
Graduate
College Level College Level
College Graduate College Graduate

16
Reasons for Choosing the Program
Check relevant,
My field of interest
I have basic knowledge / experience related to this program
Graduates in this program are in demand
Opportunity to study / work abroad
Opportunity to begin and manage my own business
I can’t find jobs for lesser qualifications
Student’s Linguist Ability
Number of Spoken Language
Circle number,
Number of Written Languages
Circle number,
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9
/ 10
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9
/ 10

17
Answering Questions
Please answer all questions by checking your relevant choice in the blank space below the
choices,
1. Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a same destination?
1 - Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 - All the Time
2. Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an old repetitive problem?
1 – Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 – All the Time
3. Have you ever tried changing your hair style to have new look?
1 – Not At All 2 - Seldom 3 - Uncertain 4 - Often 5 - All the Time
4. Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new problem?
5. Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other resources, trying to cross a
torrential river on a fallen tree log was a feasible idea?
6. Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it under different scenarios?
1-Not At All 2-Seldom 3-Uncertain 4-Often 5-All the Time
7. Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost when making decisions for
personal purchases?

18
8. Have you tried generating a new idea using two existing ideas?
9. Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the pop group “KARA” can be
replicated in your own country?
10. Have you tried using “H2o” rather than “water” in your daily conversation?
11. Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city to restart a same business that
has failed in the current venue?
12. Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between Hitler, Jack the Ripper and
Nero?
13. Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks for flooring and a spear?
14. Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project or business?
15. Have you considered studying an entirely new course in the event you fail your present
course?

19
16. Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song can be equally valuable in price
and quality?
17. Have you ever thought that you could find a way to cross a field filled with landmines,
poisonous snakes and pitfalls?
18. Have you supported any law or a group that protects an original work of art, authorship or
music?
19. Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions of the products that you
bought?
20. Have you ever considered learning a foreign language for a new vocational move in your
life?
21. Have you used logical reasoning during emotional conflicts?
22. Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be transformed into water, gas, and
ice?

20
23. Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new electronic product that had no
performance track record?
24. Have you thought that a new religion can be created by combining two or more existing
religions?
25. Have you considered the usefulness of the things or products you have bought?
26. Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a different conclusion but with
the same characters?
27. Have you ever thought why children became more active after eating more sweets or
chocolates?
28. Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand contact names and phone
numbers without any form of gadget aid?
29. Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color, charcoal, and oil color?
30. Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango rather than grapes?

21
31. Have you seen, purchased or owned a replicated art piece?
32. Have you ever tried to get an income without working, without breaking any laws and
without asking anyone for help?
33. Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project, or business?
34. Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income status, whether buying a
hummer is logical?
35. Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson’s portrait in color is the same when it is in
black and white?
36. Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand faces without any form of
gadget aid?
37. Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the amount of sleep you have had
daily?

22
38. Have you ever tried replicating you friends’ successful study methods and strategies?
39. Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock and hip-hop?
40. Have you ever tried to remake a broken toy into a different one?

23
APPENDIX B: ITEM CODING FOR CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS
QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ)

24
ITEM CODING FOR CREATIVITY: SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE
No Items Creative Elements
2
4
18
14
23
Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to solve an
old repetitive problem?
Have you chosen an old solution to solve an entirely new
problem?
Have you supported any law or a group that protects an
original work of art, authorship or music?
Have you risked venturing into a new and unknown project
or business?
Have you bought and used an entirely revolutionary new
electronic product that had no performance track record?
Originality

25
5
17
32
28
36
Have you ever thought that in the absence of any other
resources, trying to cross a torrential river on a fallen tree
log was a feasible idea?
Have you ever thought that you could find a way to cross a
field filled with landmines, poisonous snakes and pitfalls?
Have you ever tried to get an income without working,
without breaking any laws and without asking anyone for
help?
Have you ever thought that it was possible to eat using your
feet while your hands are tied behind your back?
Have you ever thought how you can remember a thousand
contact names and phone numbers without any form of
gadget aid?
Ingenuity

26
7
21
25
19
34
Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in cost
when making decisions for personal purchases?
Have you used logical reasoning during emotional conflicts?
Have you considered the usefulness of the things or products
you have bought?
Have you tried to understand comprehensively the functions
of the products that you bought?
Have you ever asked yourself that according to your income
status, whether buying a hummer is logical?
Resolution

27
8
24
12
37
27
Have you tried generating a new idea using two existing
ideas?
Have you thought that a new religion can be created by
combining two or more existing religions?
Have you ever wondered, what is the common link between
Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?
Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with the
amount of sleep you have had daily?
Have you ever thought why children became more active
after eating more sweets or chocolates?
Synthesis

28
9
31
38
16
33
Have you ever wondered whether the performance of the
pop group “KARA” can be replicated in your own country?
Have you seen, purchased or owned a replicated art piece?
Have you ever tried replicating you friends’ successful study
methods and strategies?
Have you considered that a replicated version of a hit song
can be equally valuable in price and quality?
Have you ever tried replicating a successful activity, project,
or business?
Replication

29
10
29
35
22
39
Have you tried using “H2o” rather than “water” in your
daily conversation?
Have you ever tried painting a same picture in water color,
charcoal, and oil color?
Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson’s portrait in
color is the same when it is in black and white?
Have you ever been convinced that a same element can be
transformed into water, gas, and ice?
Have you ever tried singing a same song in country, rock
and hip-hop?
Redefinition

30
6
40
13
26
30
Have you ever considered analyzing a problem by viewing it
under different scenarios?
Have you ever tried to remake a broken toy into a different
one?
Have you ever tried using bamboo to make arrows, planks
for flooring and a spear?
Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting it to have a
different conclusion but with the same characters?
Have you ever thought that wine can be made out of mango
rather than grapes?
Reconstruction

31
11
15
20
3
1
Have you ever considered moving to a different town or city
to restart a same business that has failed in the current
venue?
Have considered studying an entirely new course in the
event you fail your present course?
Have you ever considered learning a foreign language for a
new vocational move in your life?
Have you ever tried changing your hair style to have new
look?
Have you tried travelling on a different route to reach a
same destination?
Reinitiation

32
APPENDIX C: FREQUENCIES FOR DEMOGRAPHICS

33
FREQUENCIES FOR DEMOGRAPHICS
Statistics
Age Gen
der
Study
Prefere
nce
Year
of
Stud
y in
Colle
ge
GPA Paren
tal
Fami
ly
Statu
s
Fami
ly
Inco
me
Father
Famil
Educati
onal
Backgro
und
Mother
Famil
Educati
onal
Backgro
und
Reaso
ns for
Choos
ing
Progra
m
Numbe
r of
Spoken
Langua
ges
Numbe
r of
Written
Langua
ges
N
Valid 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900
Missi
ng
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean
19.23
56
1.34
67
3.2500 2.832
2
5.360
0
1.133
3
3.743
3
4.6567 4.6756 2.862
2
2.3611 2.3022
Median
19.00
00
1.00
00
3.0000 3.000
0
6.000
0
1.000
0
4.000
0
5.0000 5.0000 3.000
0
2.0000 2.0000
Mode 20.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Std.
Deviation
2.137
66
.476
17
1.6149
8
1.252
21
2.198
03
.5036
0
1.596
61
1.38838 1.38932 1.441
06
.66171 .66687
Variance 4.570 .227 2.608 1.5684.831 .254 2.549 1.928 1.930 2.077 .438 .445
Skewness 1.779 .645 .610 .112 -.384 4.841 -.227 -1.050 -.950 .113 1.571 1.619
Std. Error of
Skewness
.082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082 .082
Kurtosis
7.048 -
1.58
7
.061 -.902 -.754 26.16
1
-
1.076
.475 .243 -1.125 3.894 4.525
Std. Error of
Kurtosis
.163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163 .163
Range 17.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 9.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
Minimum 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maximum 32.00 2.00 7.00 6.00 10.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 6.00
Percent
iles
25
18.00
00
1.00
00
2.0000 2.000
0
4.000
0
1.000
0
2.000
0
4.0000 4.0000 1.000
0
2.0000 2.0000

34
50
19.00
00
1.00
00
3.0000 3.000
0
6.000
0
1.000
0
4.000
0
5.0000 5.0000 3.000
0
2.0000 2.0000
75
20.00
00
2.00
00
4.0000 4.000
0
7.000
0
1.000
0
5.000
0
6.0000 6.0000 4.000
0
3.0000 3.0000
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
15.00 2 .2 .2 .2
16.00 45 5.0 5.0 5.2
17.00 121 13.4 13.4 18.7
18.00 181 20.1 20.1 38.8
19.00 181 20.1 20.1 58.9
20.00 199 22.1 22.1 81.0
21.00 89 9.9 9.9 90.9
22.00 30 3.3 3.3 94.2
23.00 23 2.6 2.6 96.8
24.00 7 .8 .8 97.6
25.00 7 .8 .8 98.3
26.00 6 .7 .7 99.0
27.00 1 .1 .1 99.1
28.00 1 .1 .1 99.2
29.00 2 .2 .2 99.4
30.00 1 .1 .1 99.6
32.00 4 .4 .4 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0

35
Gender
Percent
Valid
Male 588 65.3 65.3 65.3
Female 312 34.7 34.7 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Study Preference
Percent
Valid
Arts 149 16.6 16.6 16.6
Science 130 14.4 14.4 31.0
Math 259 28.8 28.8 59.8
Technical 231 25.7 25.7 85.4
Abstract 31 3.4 3.4 88.9
Social Science 40 4.4 4.4 93.3
Religion 60 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Year of Study in College
Percent
Valid
1st Year 164 18.2 18.2 18.2
2nd Year 202 22.4 22.4 40.7
3rd Year 250 27.8 27.8 68.4

36
4th Year 193 21.4 21.4 89.9
5th Year 87 9.7 9.7 99.6
6.00 4 .4 .4 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
GPA
Percent
Valid
1.0 57 6.3 6.3 6.3
1.25 72 8.0 8.0 14.3
1.50 74 8.2 8.2 22.6
1.75 79 8.8 8.8 31.3
2.0 145 16.1 16.1 47.4
2.25 148 16.4 16.4 63.9
2.50 171 19.0 19.0 82.9
2.75 114 12.7 12.7 95.6
3.0 37 4.1 4.1 99.7
5.0 3 .3 .3 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Parental Family Status
Percent
Valid
Married 819 91.0 91.0 91.0
Separated 62 6.9 6.9 97.9
Divorced 2 .2 .2 98.1

37
Remarried 14 1.6 1.6 99.7
Orphaned 3 .3 .3 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Family Income
Percent
Valid
25000> 103 11.4 11.4 11.4
20000 - 25000 126 14.0 14.0 25.4
15000 - 20000 153 17.0 17.0 42.4
10000 - 15000 177 19.7 19.7 62.1
5000 - 10000 199 22.1 22.1 84.2
5000< 142 15.8 15.8 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Father Family Educational Background
Percent
Valid
Elementary Level 46 5.1 5.1 5.1
Elementary Graduate 35 3.9 3.9 9.0
High School Level 72 8.0 8.0 17.0
High School Graduate 188 20.9 20.9 37.9
College Level 247 27.4 27.4 65.3
College Graduate 312 34.7 34.7 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0

38
Mother Family Educational Background
Percent
Valid
Elementary Level 39 4.3 4.3 4.3
Elementary Graduate 40 4.4 4.4 8.8
High School Level 69 7.7 7.7 16.4
High School Graduate 224 24.9 24.9 41.3
College Level 182 20.2 20.2 61.6
College Graduate 346 38.4 38.4 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Reasons for Choosing Program
Percent
Valid
My field of interest 235 26.1 26.1 26.1
I have basic knowledge /
experience related to this
program
142 15.8 15.8 41.9
Graduates in this program
are in demand
172 19.1 19.1 61.0
Opportunity to study / work
abroad
234 26.0 26.0 87.0
Opportunity to begin and
manage my own business
97 10.8 10.8 97.8
I can't find jobs for lesser
qualifications
20 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0

39
Number of Spoken Languages
Percent
Valid
1 21 2.3 2.3 2.3
2 585 65.0 65.0 67.3
3 262 29.1 29.1 96.4
4 12 1.3 1.3 97.8
5 20 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0
Number of Written Languages
Percent
Valid
1 34 3.8 3.8 3.8
2 612 68.0 68.0 71.8
3 220 24.4 24.4 96.2
4 17 1.9 1.9 98.1
5 16 1.8 1.8 99.9
6 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 900 100.0 100.0

52
APPENDIX D: RELIABILITY ANALYSES

53
SCALE: RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - PILOT STUDY
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 300 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 300 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables
in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.886 .907 40

54
SCALE: ORIGINALITY
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
in the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.484 .485 5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Have you ever chosen an entirely new solution to
solve an old repetitive problem?
3.0800 1.09516 900
Have you chosen an old solution to solve an
entirely new problem?
2.9489 1.07848 900
Have you supported any law or group that
protects an original work of art, authorship or
music?
2.6867 1.26194 900

55
Have you risked venturing into a new and
unknown project or business?
2.4122 1.16305 900
Have you bought and used an entirely
revolutionary new product that had no
2.3667 1.30414 900
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Have you
ever
chosen an
entirely
new
solution to
solve an
old
repetitive
problem?
Have you
chosen an
old
solution to
solve an
entirely
new
problem?
Have you
supported
any law or
group that
protects
an original
work of
art,
authorship
or music?
Have you
risked
venturing
into a new
and
unknown
project or
business?
Have you
bought and
used an
entirely
revolutionary
new product
that had no
performance
track
record?
Have you ever chosen an entirely
new solution to solve an old
repetitive problem?
1.000 .345 .173 .082 .111
Have you chosen an old solution
to solve an entirely new
problem?
.345 1.000 .148 .047 -.006
Have you supported any law or
group that protects an original
work of art, authorship or
music?
.173 .148 1.000 .203 .171
Have you risked venturing into a
new and unknown project or
business?
.082 .047 .203 1.000 .309
Have you bought and used an
entirely revolutionary new
product that had no
.111 -.006 .171 .309 1.000

56
Summary Item Statistics
Mean MinimumMaximum Range Maximum /
Minimum
Variance N of
Items
Item Means 2.699 2.367 3.080 .713 1.301 .100 5
Item Variances 1.402 1.163 1.701 .538 1.462 .057 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.159 -.006 .345 .352 -53.686 .011 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Have you ever chosen an entirely
new solution to solve an old
repetitive problem?
10.4144 8.412 .287 .143 .413
Have you chosen an old solution
to solve an entirely new
problem?
10.5456 8.951 .204 .131 .463
Have you supported any law or
group that protects an original
work of art, authorship or
music?
10.8078 7.797 .290 .085 .407
Have you risked venturing into a
new and unknown project or
business?
11.0822 8.218 .279 .120 .416
Have you bought and used an
entirely revolutionary new
product that had no
11.1278 7.931 .245 .117 .441

57
SCALE: INGENUITY
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
in the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.499 .558 5
Item Statistics
Have you ever thought that in the absence of any
other resources, trying to cross a torrential river
on a fallen tree log was a feasible idea?
2.6967 1.06736 900
Have you ever thought that you could find a way
to cross a field filled with landmines, poisonous
snakes and pitfalls?
2.5022 2.17146 900

58
Have you tried to get an income without working,
without breaking any laws and without asking
anyone for help?
2.4689 1.29778 900
Have you ever thought how you can remember a
thousand contact names and phone numbers
without any form of gadget aid?
2.4456 1.17080 900
Have you ever thought how you can remember a
thousand faces without any form of gadget aid?
2.4744 1.18030 900
Have you
ever
thought
that in the
absence of
any other
resources,
trying to
cross a
torrential
river on a
fallen tree
log was a
feasible
idea?
Have you
ever
thought
that you
could find
a way to
cross a
field filled
with
landmines,
poisonous
snakes and
pitfalls?
Have you
tried to get
an income
without
working,
without
breaking
any laws
and
without
asking
anyone for
help?
Have you
ever
thought
how you
can
remember
a thousand
contact
names and
phone
numbers
without
any form
of gadget
aid?
Have you
ever
thought
how you
can
remember
a thousand
faces
without
any form
of gadget
aid?
Have you ever thought that in
the absence of any other
resources, trying to cross a
torrential river on a fallen tree
1.000 .063 .093 .196 .173
Have you ever thought that you
could find a way to cross a field
filled with landmines, poisonous
.063 1.000 .131 .174 .134

59
Have you tried to get an income
without working, without
breaking any laws and without
asking anyone for help?
.093 .131 1.000 .225 .252
Have you ever thought how you
can remember a thousand
contact names and phone
numbers without any form of
gadget aid?
.196 .174 .225 1.000 .578
can remember a thousand faces
.173 .134 .252 .578 1.000
Minimum
Variance N of
Items
Item Means 2.518 2.446 2.697 .251 1.103 .010 5
Item Variances 2.061 1.139 4.715 3.576 4.139 2.240 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.202 .063 .578 .515 9.182 .020 5
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Have you ever thought that in
the absence of any other
resources, trying to cross a
torrential river on a fallen tree
9.8911 14.531 .181 .046 .493

60
Have you ever thought that you
could find a way to cross a field
filled with landmines, poisonous
10.0856 9.820 .192 .041 .575
Have you tried to get an income
without working, without
breaking any laws and without
asking anyone for help?
10.1189 13.006 .262 .082 .450
can remember a thousand
contact names and phone
numbers without any form of
gadget aid?
10.1422 12.118 .448 .357 .351
can remember a thousand faces
10.1133 12.259 .422 .353 .364

61
SCALE: RESOLUTION
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.497 .510 5
Item Statistics
Have you preferred value in quality over cheapness in
cost when making decisions for personal purchases?
3.2848 1.45274 900
Have you used logical reasoning during emotional
conflicts?
3.1156 1.07349 900
Have you considered the usefulness of the things or
products you have bought?
3.4067 1.54616 900

62
Have you tried to understand comprehensively the
functions of the products that you bought?
3.2300 1.16177 900
Have you ever asked yourself that according to your
income status, whether buying a hummer is logical?
2.4478 1.21565 900
Have you
preferred
value in
quality
over
cheapness
in cost
when
making
decisions
for
personal
purchases?
Have you
used
logical
reasoning
during
emotional
conflicts?
Have you
considered
the
usefulness
of the
things or
products
you have
bought?
Have you tried
to understand
comprehensively
the functions of
the products that
you bought?
Have you
ever asked
yourself
that
according
to your
income
status,
whether
buying a
hummer is
logical?
Have you preferred value in
quality over cheapness in cost
when making decisions for
personal purchases?
1.000 .149 .149 .173 .086
Have you used logical reasoning
during emotional conflicts?
.149 1.000 .255 .309 .144
Have you considered the
usefulness of the things or
.149 .255 1.000 .340 .032
Have you tried to understand
comprehensively the functions of
the products that you bought?
.173 .309 .340 1.000 .085
Have you ever asked yourself that
according to your income status,
whether buying a hummer is
logical?
.086 .144 .032 .085 1.000

63
Inter-Item Covariance Matrix
Have you
preferred
value in
quality
over
cheapness
in cost
when
making
decisions
for
personal
purchases?
Have you
used
logical
reasoning
during
emotional
conflicts?
Have you
considered
the
usefulness
of the
things or
products
you have
bought?
Have you tried
to understand
comprehensively
the functions of
the products that
you bought?
Have you
ever asked
yourself
that
according
to your
income
status,
whether
buying a
hummer is
logical?
Have you preferred value in
quality over cheapness in cost
when making decisions for
personal purchases?
2.110 .233 .336 .292 .153
.233 1.152 .423 .385 .187
Have you considered the
usefulness of the things or
.336 .423 2.391 .612 .060
.292 .385 .612 1.350 .119
logical?
.153 .187 .060 .119 1.478

64
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.097 2.448 3.407 .959 1.392 .143 5
Item Variances 1.696 1.152 2.391 1.238 2.075 .279 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.172 .032 .340 .308 10.632 .010 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Have you preferred value in quality
over cheapness in cost when
making decisions for personal
purchases?
12.2000 9.944 .221 .050 .479
12.3692 10.472 .354 .140 .400
Have you considered the usefulness
of the things or products you have
bought?
12.0781 8.829 .311 .147 .414
12.2548 9.916 .385 .179 .374
logical?
13.0370 11.565 .126 .027 .526

65
SCALE: SYNTHESIS
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.374 .386 5
Item Statistics
Have you tried generating a new idea using two
existing ideas?
3.2011 1.66044 900
Have you thought that a new religion can be created
by combining two or more existing religions?
2.2878 1.19810 900
Have you ever wondered, what is the common link
between Hitler, Jack the Ripper and Nero?
2.2622 1.17450 900
Have you ever linked your feeling of freshness with
the amount of sleep you have had daily?
3.1144 1.55765 900

66
Have you ever thought why children became more
active after eating more sweets or chocolates?
3.1000 1.25369 900
Have you
tried
generating
a new idea
using two
existing
ideas?
Have you
thought that
a new
religion can
be created
by
combining
two or
more
existing
religions?
Have you
ever
wondered,
what is the
common
link
between
Hitler, Jack
the Ripper
and Nero?
Have you
ever linked
yor feeling
of freshness
with the
amount of
sleep you
have had
daily?
Have you
ever
thought
why
children
became
more active
after eating
more
sweets or
chocolates?
Have you tried generating a new
idea using two existing ideas?
1.000 .030 .072 .109 .130
Have you thought that a new
religion can be created by
combining two or more existing
religions?
.030 1.000 .250 .077 .118
Have you ever wondered, what is
the common link between Hitler,
Jack the Ripper and Nero?
.072 .250 1.000 .039 .058
Have you ever linked your feeling
of freshness with the amount of
sleep you have had daily?
.109 .077 .039 1.000 .236
Have you ever thought why
children became more active after
eating more sweets or chocolates?
.130 .118 .058 .236 1.000

67
Have you
tried
generating
a new idea
using two
existing
ideas?
Have you
thought that
a new
religion can
be created
by
combining
two or
more
existing
religions?
Have you
ever
wondered,
what is the
common
link
between
Hitler, Jack
the Ripper
and Nero?
Have you
ever linked
yor feeling
of freshness
with the
amount of
sleep you
have had
daily?
Have you
ever
thought
why
children
became
more active
after eating
more
sweets or
chocolates?
2.757 .060 .141 .282 .270
religions?
.060 1.435 .352 .143 .177
.141 .352 1.379 .071 .086
.282 .143 .071 2.426 .461
.270 .177 .086 .461 1.572

68
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 2.793 2.262 3.201 .939 1.415 .225 5
Item Variances 1.914 1.379 2.757 1.378 1.999 .401 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.112 .030 .250 .220 8.289 .006 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
10.7644 9.393 .148 .027 .366
religions?
11.6778 10.757 .186 .075 .325
11.7033 10.976 .167 .067 .338
10.8511 9.315 .201 .064 .311
10.8656 10.094 .250 .077 .277

69
SCALE: REPLICATION
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.440 .459 5
Item Statistics
Have you ever wondered whether the
performance of the pop group "KARA" can be
replicated in your own country?
2.2844 1.53389 900
Have you seen, purchased owned a replicated art
piece?
2.4256 1.36621 900
Have you ever tried replicating your friends'
successful study methods and strategies?
2.7222 1.18413 900

70
Have you considered that a replicated version of
a hit song can be equally valuable in price and
quality?
2.4989 1.60471 900
Have you ever tried replicating a successful
activity, project, or business?
2.5667 1.21586 900
Have you
ever
wondered
whether the
performance
of the pop
group
"KARA"
can be
replicated in
your own
country?
Have you
seen,
purchased
owned a
replicated
art piece?
Have you
ever tried
replicating
your
friends'
successful
study
methods
and
strategies?
Have you
considered
that a
replicated
version of a
hit song
can be
equally
valuable in
price and
quality?
Have you
ever tried
replicating
a
successful
activity,
project, or
business?
Have you ever wondered whether
the performance of the pop group
"KARA" can be replicated in your
own country?
1.000 .114 .020 .093 .113
Have you seen, purchased owned a
replicated art piece?
.114 1.000 .169 .123 .301
Have you ever tried replicating
your friends' successful study
.020 .169 1.000 .116 .261
Have you considered that a
replicated version of a hit song can
be equally valuable in price and
quality?
.093 .123 .116 1.000 .138
Have you ever tried replicating a
successful activity, project, or
business?
.113 .301 .261 .138 1.000

71
Have you
ever
wondered
whether the
performance
of the pop
group
"KARA"
can be
replicated in
your own
country?
Have you
seen,
purchased
owned a
replicated
art piece?
Have you
ever tried
replicating
your
friends'
successful
study
methods
and
strategies?
Have you
considered
that a
replicated
version of a
hit song
can be
equally
valuable in
price and
quality?
Have you
ever tried
replicating
a
successful
activity,
project, or
business?
own country?
2.353 .239 .037 .229 .210
.239 1.867 .274 .269 .501
.037 .274 1.402 .221 .376
quality?
.229 .269 .221 2.575 .270
business?
.210 .501 .376 .270 1.478

72
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 2.500 2.284 2.722 .438 1.192 .026 5
Item Variances 1.935 1.402 2.575 1.173 1.836 .270 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.145 .020 .301 .281 14.859 .006 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
own country?
10.2133 11.142 .140 .025 .457
10.0722 10.494 .290 .111 .341
9.7756 11.709 .224 .083 .391
quality?
9.9989 10.373 .191 .037 .421
business?
9.9311 10.736 .340 .148 .315

73
SCALE: REDEFINITION
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.492 .497 5
Item Statistics
Have you tried using "H2o" rather than "water"
in your daily conversation?
2.3022 1.42978 900
Have you ever tried painting a same picture in
water color, charcoal, and oil color?
2.6767 1.22493 900
Have you ever thought that Michael Jackson's
portrait in color is the same when it is in black
and white?
2.5156 1.40268 900

74
Have you ever been convinced that a same
element can be transformed into water, gas, and
ice?
2.7167 1.22939 900
Have you ever tried singing a same song in
country, rock, and hip-hop?
2.9478 1.23201 900
Have you
tried using
"H2o" rather
than "water"
in your daily
conversation?
Have you
ever tried
painting a
same
picture in
water
color,
charcoal,
and oil
color?
Have you
ever
thought
that
Michael
Jackson's
portrait in
color is the
same when
it is in
black and
white?
Have you
ever been
convinced
that a same
element can
be
transformed
into water,
gas, and
ice?
Have you
ever tried
singing a
same song
in country,
rock, and
hip-hop?
Have you tried using "H2o" rather
than "water" in your daily
conversation?
1.000 .087 .156 .145 .080
Have you ever tried painting a
same picture in water color,
.087 1.000 .201 .159 .270
Have you ever thought that
Michael Jackson's portrait in color
is the same when it is in black and
white?
.156 .201 1.000 .169 .194
Have you ever been convinced that
a same element can be transformed
into water, gas, and ice?
.145 .159 .169 1.000 .190
Have you ever tried singing a same
song in country, rock, and hip-
hop?
.080 .270 .194 .190 1.000

75
Have you
tried using
"H2o" rather
than "water"
in your daily
conversation?
Have you
ever tried
painting a
same
picture in
water
color,
charcoal,
and oil
color?
Have you
ever
thought
that
Michael
Jackson's
portrait in
color is the
same when
it is in
black and
white?
Have you
ever been
convinced
that a same
element can
be
transformed
into water,
gas, and
ice?
Have you
ever tried
singing a
same song
in country,
rock, and
hip-hop?
conversation?
2.044 .152 .313 .255 .141
.152 1.500 .346 .240 .408
white?
.313 .346 1.967 .291 .335
.255 .240 .291 1.511 .288
song in country, rock, and hip-
hop?
.141 .408 .335 .288 1.518
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 2.632 2.302 2.948 .646 1.280 .058 5
Item Variances 1.708 1.500 2.044 .544 1.362 .075 5

76
Inter-Item
Correlations
.165 .080 .270 .190 3.366 .003 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
conversation?
10.8567 10.312 .188 .041 .493
10.4822 10.288 .292 .105 .421
white?
10.6433 9.542 .297 .089 .415
10.4422 10.423 .270 .074 .434
song in country, rock, and hip-hop?
10.2111 10.218 .298 .111 .417

77
SCALE: RECONSTRUCTION
N %
Cases
Valid 899 99.9
Excludeda
1 .1
Total 900 100.0
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.346 .392 5
Item Statistics
Have you ever considered analyzing a problem
by viewing it under different scenarios?
3.2970 1.31536 899
Have you tried to remake a broken toy into a
different one?
3.0189 1.21364 899
Have you ever tried using bamboo to make
arrows, planks for flooring and a spear?
2.3526 1.15657 899

78
Have you tried taking a short story and rewriting
it to have a different conclusion but with the
same characters?
2.8621 2.46871 899
Have you ever thought that wine can be made out
of mango rather than grapes?
2.6352 1.70494 899
Have you
ever
considered
analyzing a
problem by
viewing it
under
different
scenarios?
Have you
tried to
remake a
broken toy
into a
different
one?
Have you
ever tried
using
bamboo to
make
arrows,
planks for
flooring
and a
spear?
Have you
tried taking
a short
story and
rewriting it
to have a
different
conclusion
but with the
same
characters?
Have you
ever
thought
that wine
can be
made out of
mango
rather than
grapes?
Have you ever considered
analyzing a problem by viewing it
1.000 .112 .058 .008 .039
Have you tried to remake a broken
toy into a different one?
.112 1.000 .201 .135 .183
Have you ever tried using bamboo
to make arrows, planks for flooring
and a spear?
.058 .201 1.000 .104 .191
Have you tried taking a short story
and rewriting it to have a different
conclusion but with the same
characters?
.008 .135 .104 1.000 .112
Have you ever thought that wine
can be made out of mango rather
than grapes?
.039 .183 .191 .112 1.000

79
Have you
ever
considered
analyzing a
problem by
viewing it
under
different
scenarios?
Have you
tried to
remake a
broken toy
into a
different
one?
Have you
ever tried
using
bamboo to
make
arrows,
planks for
flooring
and a
spear?
Have you
tried taking
a short
story and
rewriting it
to have a
different
conclusion
but with the
same
characters?
Have you
ever
thought
that wine
can be
made out of
mango
rather than
grapes?
1.730 .179 .088 .027 .087
.179 1.473 .282 .406 .378
and a spear?
.088 .282 1.338 .297 .376
characters?
.027 .406 .297 6.095 .472
than grapes?
.087 .378 .376 .472 2.907
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 2.833 2.353 3.297 .944 1.401 .130 5
Item Variances 2.708 1.338 6.095 4.757 4.556 3.967 5

80
Inter-Item
Correlations
.114 .008 .201 .193 24.564 .004 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
10.8687 16.232 .072 .014 .363
11.1468 14.762 .267 .082 .243
and a spear?
11.8131 15.301 .230 .070 .270
characters?
11.3037 10.227 .152 .031 .362
than grapes?
11.5306 13.191 .212 .064 .258

81
SCALE: REINITIATION
N %
Cases
Valid 900 100.0
Excludeda
0 .0
Total 900 100.0
the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.320 .389 5
Item Statistics
Have you ever considered moving to a different
town or city to restart a same business that has
failed in the current venue?
2.0811 1.17779 900
Have you considered studying an entirely new
course in the event you fail your present course?
2.2556 1.29825 900
Have you considered learning a foreign language
for a new vocational move in your life?
3.1400 1.33005 900

82
Have you ever tried changing your hair style to
have a new look?
3.1900 2.61137 900
Have you tried travelling on a different route to
reach a same destination?
2.9033 1.38102 900
Have you
ever
considered
moving to
a different
town or
city to
restart a
same
business
that has
failed in
the current
venue?
Have you
considered
studying an
entirely
new course
in the event
you fail
your
present
course?
Have you
considered
learning a
foreign
language
for a new
vocational
move in
your life?
Have you
ever tried
changing
your hair
style to
have a new
look?
Have you
tried
travelling
on a
different
route to
reach a
same
destination?
Have you ever considered moving
to a different town or city to restart
a same business that has failed in
the current venue?
1.000 .269 .137 .027 .125
Have you considered studying an
entirely new course in the event
you fail your present course?
.269 1.000 .163 .014 .030
Have you considered learning a
foreign language for a new
vocational move in your life?
.137 .163 1.000 .072 .149
Have you ever tried changing your
hair style to have a new look?
.027 .014 .072 1.000 .144
Have you tried travelling on a
different route to reach a same
destination?
.125 .030 .149 .144 1.000

83
Have you
ever
considered
moving to a
different
town or
city to
restart a
same
business
that has
failed in the
current
venue?
Have you
considered
studying an
entirely
new course
in the event
you fail
your
present
course?
Have you
considered
learning a
foreign
language
for a new
vocational
move in
your life?
Have you
ever tried
changing
your hair
style to
have a new
look?
Have you
tried
travelling
on a
different
route to
reach a
same
destination?
the current venue?
1.387 .411 .214 .084 .203
.411 1.685 .282 .046 .054
.214 .282 1.769 .250 .274
.084 .046 .250 6.819 .519
destination?
.203 .054 .274 .519 1.907
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum /
Minimum
Variance N of Items
Item Means 2.714 2.081 3.190 1.109 1.533 .264 5

84
Item Variances 2.714 1.387 6.819 5.432 4.916 5.304 5
Inter-Item
Correlations
.113 .014 .269 .255 19.828 .006 5
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
the current venue?
11.4889 15.031 .200 .092 .253
11.3144 14.970 .158 .089 .275
10.4300 14.430 .202 .056 .243
10.3800 9.624 .111 .023 .398
destination?
10.6667 14.236 .201 .051 .241

85
APPENDIX E: RELIABILTY ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT SCALES OF CSEQ

86
SCALE: RELIABILTY ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT SCALES OF CSEQ
N %
Cases
Valid 899 99.9
Excludeda
1 .1
Total 900 100.0
in the procedure.
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
N of Items
.840 .842 8
Originalit
y
Ingenuit
y
Resolutio
n
Synthes
is
Replicati
on
Redefiniti
on
Reconstructi
on
Reinitiati
on
Originality 1.000 .452 .410 .431 .439 .470 .450 .429
Ingenuity .452 1.000 .378 .437 .440 .500 .440 .308
Resolution .410 .378 1.000 .436 .250 .355 .407 .292
Synthesis .431 .437 .436 1.000 .391 .425 .432 .321
Replication .439 .440 .250 .391 1.000 .462 .381 .299
Redefinition .470 .500 .355 .425 .462 1.000 .466 .369

87
Reconstructi
on
.450 .440 .407 .432 .381 .466 1.000 .349
Reinitiation .429 .308 .292 .321 .299 .369 .349 1.000
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Originality 95.4386 367.017 .639 .412 .814
Ingenuity 96.3463 350.070 .607 .386 .816
Resolution 93.4449 373.145 .511 .297 .828
Synthesis 94.9670 364.517 .589 .357 .819
Replication 96.4397 366.340 .541 .329 .825
Redefinition 95.7723 357.622 .631 .410 .813
Reconstruction 94.7690 345.831 .601 .366 .817
Reinitiation 95.3652 365.711 .473 .244 .835
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
108.9347 461.316 21.47828 8

88
Originalit
y
Ingenuit
y
Resolutio
n
Synthes
is
Replicati
on
Redefiniti
on
Reconstructi
on
Reinitiati
on
Originality 1.000 .452 .410 .431 .439 .470 .450 .429
Ingenuity .452 1.000 .378 .437 .440 .500 .440 .308
Resolution .410 .378 1.000 .436 .250 .355 .407 .292
Synthesis .431 .437 .436 1.000 .391 .425 .432 .321
Replication .439 .440 .250 .391 1.000 .462 .381 .299
Redefinition .470 .500 .355 .425 .462 1.000 .466 .369
Reconstructi
on
.450 .440 .407 .432 .381 .466 1.000 .349
Reinitiation .429 .308 .292 .321 .299 .369 .349 1.000
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Originality 95.4386 367.017 .639 .412 .814
Ingenuity 96.3463 350.070 .607 .386 .816
Resolution 93.4449 373.145 .511 .297 .828
Synthesis 94.9670 364.517 .589 .357 .819
Replication 96.4397 366.340 .541 .329 .825
Redefinition 95.7723 357.622 .631 .410 .813
Reconstruction 94.7690 345.831 .601 .366 .817
Reinitiation 95.3652 365.711 .473 .244 .835
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

89
108.9347 461.316 21.47828 8
APPENDIX F: CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES

90
CORRELATION BETWEEN AGE AND EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Age Ori
gin
alit
y
Ingenu
ity
Resolut
ion
Synthe
sis
Replicat
ion
Redefinit
ion
Reconstruc
tion
Reinitiat
ion
Age
Pearson
Correlat
ion
1 .05
3
.031 .003 -.018 .088**
.005 .045 .033
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.05
6
.177 .465 .296 .004 .440 .089 .160
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originality
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.053 1 .452**
.411**
.431**
.439**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.056 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.031 .45
2**
1 .378**
.437**
.440**
.500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.177 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolution
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.003 .41
1**
.378**
1 .436**
.249**
.356**
.407**
.291**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.465 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

91
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Synthesis
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.018 .43
1**
.437**
.436**
1 .390**
.425**
.432**
.320**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.296 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Replication
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.088**
.43
9**
.440**
.249**
.390**
1 .462**
.381**
.299**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.004 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Redefinitio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.005 .47
0**
.500**
.356**
.425**
.462**
1 .466**
.368**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.440 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Reconstruc
tion
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.045 .45
0**
.440**
.407**
.432**
.381**
.466**
1 .349**
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.089 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Reinitiatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.033 .42
8**
.307**
.291**
.320**
.299**
.368**
.349**
1
Sig. (1-
tailed)
.160 .00
0
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

92
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN YEAR OF STUDY AND EIGHT CREATIVITY
ELEMENTS
Year
of
Study
in
Colle
ge
Origina
lity
Resolut
ion
Synthe
sis
Replicat
ion
Ingenu
ity
Redefinit
ion
Reconstruc
tion
Reinitiat
ion
Year of
Study in
College
Pearson
Correlat
ion
1 -.077*
.000 -.049 -.017 -.038 -.076*
.032 -.055
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.021 .998 .141 .606 .254 .022 .331 .100
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originality
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-
.077*
1 .411**
.431**
.439**
.452**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.021 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolution
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.000 .411**
1 .436**
.249**
.378**
.356**
.407**
.291**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.998 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Synthesis
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.049 .431**
.436**
1 .390**
.437**
.425**
.432**
.320**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.141 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

93
Replicatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.017 .439**
.249**
.390**
1 .440**
.462**
.381**
.299**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.606 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.038 .452**
.378**
.437**
.440**
1 .500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.254 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Redefinitio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-
.076*
.470**
.356**
.425**
.462**
.500**
1 .466**
.368**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.022 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Reconstruc
tion
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.032 .450**
.407**
.432**
.381**
.440**
.466**
1 .349**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.331 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Reinitiatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.055 .428**
.291**
.320**
.299**
.307**
.368**
.349**
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.100 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

94
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT REASONS FOR STUDYING THEIR
PROGRAMS AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Reaso
ns for
Choosi
ng
Progra
m
Origina
lity
Resolut
ion
Synthe
sis
Replicat
ion
Ingenu
ity
Redefini
tion
Reconstru
ction
Reinitiat
ion
Reasons
for
Choosing
Program
Pearson
Correlat
ion
1 .000 -.036 .067*
.050 .039 .030 .015 .007
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.988 .274 .044 .134 .238 .373 .661 .829
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originality
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.000 1 .411**
.431**
.439**
.452**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.988 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolution
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.036 .411**
1 .436**
.249**
.378**
.356**
.407**
.291**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.274 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Synthesis
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.067*
.431**
.436**
1 .390**
.437**
.425**
.432**
.320**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.044 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

95
Replicatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.050 .439**
.249**
.390**
1 .440**
.462**
.381**
.299**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.134 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.039 .452**
.378**
.437**
.440**
1 .500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.238 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Redefinitio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.030 .470**
.356**
.425**
.462**
.500**
1 .466**
.368**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.373 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Reconstruc
tion
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.015 .450**
.407**
.432**
.381**
.440**
.466**
1 .349**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.661 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Reinitiatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.007 .428**
.291**
.320**
.299**
.307**
.368**
.349**
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.829 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

96
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENTS LINGUISTIC ABILITY (SPOKEN /
WRITTEN AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Numb
er of
Spoke
n
Langu
ages
Numb
er of
Writte
n
Langu
ages
Origin
ality
Resolu
tion
Synth
esis
Replica
tion
Ingen
uity
Redefin
ition
Reconstru
ction
Reinitia
tion
Number
of Spoken
Language
s
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
1 .655**
.064 .041 .067*
.018 .017 .055 .034 .087**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .054 .223 .046 .591 .618 .100 .309 .009
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Number
of
Written
Language
s
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.655**
1 .027 .001 .075*
.024 .008 .047 .045 .048
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.000 .420 .967 .024 .472 .817 .155 .180 .150
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originalit
y
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.064 .027 1 .411**
.431**
.439**
.452**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.054 .420 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolutio
n
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.041 .001 .411**
1 .436**
.249**
.378**
.356**
.407**
.291**

97
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.223 .967 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Synthesis
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.067*
.075*
.431**
.436**
1 .390**
.437**
.425**
.432**
.320**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.046 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Replicatio
n
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.018 .024 .439**
.249**
.390**
1 .440**
.462**
.381**
.299**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.591 .472 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.017 .008 .452**
.378**
.437**
.440**
1 .500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.618 .817 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Redefiniti
on
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.055 .047 .470**
.356**
.425**
.462**
.500**
1 .466**
.368**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.100 .155 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Reconstru
ction
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.034 .045 .450**
.407**
.432**
.381**
.440**
.466**
1 .349**

98
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.309 .180 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Reinitiati
on
Pearso
n
Correla
tion
.087**
.048 .428**
.291**
.320**
.299**
.307**
.368**
.349**
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.009 .150 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

99
GENERAL LINEAR MODEL (MANOVA) GENDER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Between-Subjects Factors
Value Label N
Gender
1.00 Male 587
2.00 Female 312
Box's Test of Equality of
Covariance Matricesa
Box's M 114.463
F 3.146
df1 36
df2 1419800.525
Sig. .000

100
Multivariate Testsa
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Intercept
Pillai's Trace .962 2833.707b
8.000 890.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .038 2833.707b
8.000 890.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace 25.472 2833.707b
8.000 890.000 .000
Roy's Largest Root 25.472 2833.707b
8.000 890.000 .000
Gender
Pillai's Trace .024 2.710b
8.000 890.000 .006
Wilks' Lambda .976 2.710b
8.000 890.000 .006
Hotelling's Trace .024 2.710b
8.000 890.000 .006
Roy's Largest Root .024 2.710b
8.000 890.000 .006
a. Design: Intercept + Gender
b. Exact statistic
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Originality .333 1 897 .564
Ingenuity 1.716 1 897 .190
Resolution 1.112 1 897 .292
Synthesis 1.251 1 897 .264
Replication 3.244 1 897 .072
Redefinition .463 1 897 .496
Reconstruction 1.863 1 897 .173
Reinitiation .060 1 897 .806
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent
variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Gender

101
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source Dependent
Variable
Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected
Model
Originality 55.974a
1 55.974 4.912 .027
Ingenuity 79.911b
1 79.911 4.675 .031
Resolution 1.387c
1 1.387 .098 .754
Synthesis .081d
1 .081 .006 .939
Replication 111.092e
1 111.092 7.492 .006
Redefinition 25.922f
1 25.922 1.842 .175
Reconstruction 205.707g
1 205.707 11.110 .001
Reinitiation 5.907h
1 5.907 .323 .570
Intercept
Originality 146667.837 1 146667.837 12871.942 .000
Ingenuity 127174.905 1 127174.905 7440.472 .000
Resolution 195197.777 1 195197.777 13854.375 .000
Synthesis 159050.537 1 159050.537 11625.532 .000
Replication 124933.250 1 124933.250 8424.913 .000
Redefinition 140008.863 1 140008.863 9949.636 .000
Reconstruction 159991.246 1 159991.246 8640.835 .000
Reinitiation 149469.756 1 149469.756 8179.008 .000
Gender
Originality 55.974 1 55.974 4.912 .027
Ingenuity 79.911 1 79.911 4.675 .031
Resolution 1.387 1 1.387 .098 .754
Synthesis .081 1 .081 .006 .939
Replication 111.092 1 111.092 7.492 .006
Redefinition 25.922 1 25.922 1.842 .175
Reconstruction 205.707 1 205.707 11.110 .001
Reinitiation 5.907 1 5.907 .323 .570

102
Error
Originality 10220.762 897 11.394
Ingenuity 15331.809 897 17.092
Resolution 12638.059 897 14.089
Synthesis 12271.983 897 13.681
Replication 13301.635 897 14.829
Redefinition 12622.367 897 14.072
Reconstruction 16608.598 897 18.516
Reinitiation 16392.498 897 18.275
Total
Originality 174025.000 899
Ingenuity 157875.000 899
Resolution 228339.090 899
Synthesis 187665.000 899
Replication 153769.000 899
Redefinition 168399.000 899
Reconstruction 197215.000 899
Reinitiation 181933.000 899
Corrected Total
Originality 10276.736 898
Ingenuity 15411.720 898
Resolution 12639.446 898
Synthesis 12272.065 898
Replication 13412.727 898
Redefinition 12648.289 898
Reconstruction 16814.305 898
Reinitiation 16398.405 898
a. R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
b. R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
c. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)

103
d. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)
e. R Squared = .008 (Adjusted R Squared = .007)
f. R Squared = .002 (Adjusted R Squared = .001)
g. R Squared = .012 (Adjusted R Squared = .011)
h. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001)
Estimated Marginal Means
Gender
Dependent Variable Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Originality
Male 13.678 .139 13.405 13.951
Female 13.154 .191 12.779 13.529
Ingenuity
Male 12.806 .171 12.471 13.141
Female 12.179 .234 11.720 12.639
Resolution
Male 15.518 .155 15.214 15.822
Female 15.436 .213 15.019 15.853
Synthesis
Male 13.961 .153 13.661 14.260
Female 13.981 .209 13.570 14.392
Replication
Male 12.751 .159 12.439 13.063
Female 12.013 .218 11.585 12.441
Redefinition
Male 13.286 .155 12.982 13.590
Female 12.929 .212 12.513 13.346
Reconstruction
Male 14.514 .178 14.166 14.863
Female 13.510 .244 13.032 13.988
Reinitiation
Male 13.629 .176 13.282 13.975
Female 13.458 .242 12.983 13.933

104
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: FATHER
AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Father
Family
Educati
onal
Backgro
und
Origina
lity
Ingenu
ity
Resolut
ion
Synthe
sis
Replicat
ion
Redefini
tion
Reconstru
ction
Reinitia
tion
Father
Famil
Education
al
Backgroun
d
Pearson
Correlat
ion
1 -.019 .037 .050 .032 -.026 .025 .000 -.033
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.559 .269 .133 .342 .444 .446 .994 .326
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originality
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.019 1 .452**
.411**
.431**
.439**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.559 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.037 .452**
1 .378**
.437**
.440**
.500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.269 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolution
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.050 .411**
.378**
1 .436**
.249**
.356**
.407**
.291**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.133 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

105
Synthesis
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.032 .431**
.437**
.436**
1 .390**
.425**
.432**
.320**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.342 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Replicatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.026 .439**
.440**
.249**
.390**
1 .462**
.381**
.299**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.444 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Redefiniti
on
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.025 .470**
.500**
.356**
.425**
.462**
1 .466**
.368**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.446 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Reconstru
ction
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.000 .450**
.440**
.407**
.432**
.381**
.466**
1 .349**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.994 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899
Reinitiatio
n
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.033 .428**
.307**
.291**
.320**
.299**
.368**
.349**
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.326 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

106
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: MOTHER
AND THE EIGHT CREATIVITY ELEMENTS
Mother
Family
Educati
onal
Backgro
und
Origina
lity
Ingenu
ity
Resolut
ion
Synthe
sis
Replicat
ion
Redefini
tion
Reconstru
ction
Reinitia
tion
Mother
Family
Education
al
Backgroun
d
Pearson
Correlat
ion
1 -.030 .036 .084*
.058 .008 .074*
.034 .038
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.365 .287 .011 .082 .812 .026 .304 .260
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Originality
Pearson
Correlat
ion
-.030 1 .452**
.411**
.431**
.439**
.470**
.450**
.428**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.365 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Ingenuity
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.036 .452**
1 .378**
.437**
.440**
.500**
.440**
.307**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.287 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900
Resolution
Pearson
Correlat
ion
.084*
.411**
.378**
1 .436**
.249**
.356**
.407**
.291**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 899 900

CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Semelhante a CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (20)

Mais de Thesigan Nadarajan

Mais de Thesigan Nadarajan (20)

Último

Último (20)

CREATIVITY SELECTED ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE (CSEQ): A CREATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR INTERACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT