On the Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Assessment Scale for Creative Collaboration

  • Aekaterini MavriEmail author
  • Andri Ioannou
  • Fernando Loizides
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11746)


Creativity, a primary objective across academic disciplines, has received considerable attention over the past few decades. While much focus has been put on the measurement of individual creativity, a notable research gap remains regarding social collaborative creativity that occurs in blended learning settings. This work offers an initial validation of the psychometric properties of a self-reported instrument, the Assessment Scale for Creative Collaboration (ASCC) that can measure learner perceptions of creative collaboration in a team within a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) context. In this study, 236 undergraduate and graduate students rated the key variables of creative collaboration. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a three-factor scale (21 items) measuring ‘Synergistic Social Collaboration’, ‘Distributed Creativity’ and ‘Learning Regulation and Achievement’. Cronbach’s alphas indicated good internal consistency for the subscales. An instrument with psychometric properties for the assessment of creative collaboration is much-needed for the growing community of researchers and practitioners looking into creativity in education. It is also critical in advanced technical subjects, such as Design, HCI and Engineering, where collaboration is essential in developing innovative products.


Creative Collaboration Blended learning Psychometric measure 


  1. 1.
    Amabile, T.M., et al.: Creativity under the gun. Harvard Bus. Rev. 80, 52–63 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43(5), 997 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amabile, T.M., Pillemer, J.: Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. J. Creative Behav. 46(1), 3–15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 248–287 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batey, M.: The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Res. J. 24(1), 55–65 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dillenbourg, P., et al.: The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In: Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S. (eds.) Technology-Enhanced Learning, pp. 3–19. Springer, Dordrecht (2009). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eccles, J.: Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In: Presented at the Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches, San Francisco (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrari, A., et al.: 23. ICT as a driver for creative learning and innovative teaching. In: Measuring Creativity, p. 345 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, G., Shipman, F.: Collaborative design rationale and social creativity in cultures of participation. In: Carroll, J. (ed.) Creativity and Rationale, pp. 423–447. Springer, London (2013). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaggioli, A., et al.: The creative link: investigating the relationship between social network indices, creative performance and flow in blended teams. Comput. Hum. Behav. 42, 157–166 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gero, J., Kan, J.: Empirical results from measuring design creativity: use of an augmented coding scheme in protocol analysis. In: DS86: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design Creativity. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hadwin, D.H., et al.: Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance. Taylor & Francis, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirst, G., et al.: A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 52(2), 280–293 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horn, D., Salvendy, G.: Product creativity: conceptual model, measurement and characteristics. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 7(4), 395–412 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lance, C.E., et al.: The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: what did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 9(2), 202–220 (2006). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lew, K.H., et al.: The relationship among creativity thinking ability, creative personality and creative product. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 36, 58–62 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., et al.: Developing conceptual understanding of natural selection: the role of interest, efficacy, and basic prior knowledge. J. Exp. Educ. 80(1), 45–68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mamykina, L., et al.: Collaborative creativity. Commun. ACM 45(10), 96–99 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meneely, J., Portillo, M.: The adaptable mind in design: relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Res. J. 17(2–3), 155–166 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Netemeyer, R.G., et al.: Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paulus, P.B., et al.: Collaborative creativity—group creativity and team innovation. In: Handbook of Organizational Creativity, pp. 327–357. Elsevier (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paulus, P.B., Nijstad, B.A.: Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pearson, R.H., Mundform, D.J.: Recommended sample size for conducting exploratory factor analysis on dichotomous data. J. Modern Appl. Stat. Methods 9(2), 359–368 (2010). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pett, M.A., et al.: Making Sense of Factor Analysis: the Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pintrich, P.R.: A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16(4), 385–407 (2004). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plucker, J.A., Renzulli, J.S.: Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In: Handbook of Creativity, pp. 35–61 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prem, R., et al.: Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work. J. Organ. Behav. 38(1), 108–123 (2017). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sawyer, R.K., DeZutter, S.: Distributed creativity: how collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychol. Aesthetics Creativity Arts. 3(2), 81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott, T.J.: Distributed affect as a framework for understanding creative collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, pp. 335–336 ACM, New York (2015).
  31. 31.
    Stoeger, H., Ziegler, A.: Evaluation of a classroom based training to improve self-regulation in time management tasks during homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognit. Learn. 3(3), 207–230 (2008). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrance, E.P.: Torrance tests of creative thinking: norms-technical manual research edition. In: Verbal Tests, Forms A and B: Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Flere materialer. Personell Press (1966)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turbot, S.: Is higher education equipping young people for the jobs market?
  34. 34.
    Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B.: Handbook of Motivation at School. Routledge, London (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S.: Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25(1), 68–81 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wishart, J., et al.: CoCreat Research Plan. Internal report of the CoCreat project (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zampetakis, L.A., et al.: On the relationship between individual creativity and time management. Thinking Skills Creativity 5(1), 23–32 (2010). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zurita, G., et al.: Introducing a collaborative tool supporting a learning activity involving creativity with rotation of group members. J. UCS 22(10), 1360–1379 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cyprus Interaction Lab, Department of Multimedia and Graphic ArtsCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  2. 2.Research Centre on Interactive Media, Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (RISE)NicosiaCyprus
  3. 3.School of Computer Sciences and InformaticsCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations