创造力成就问卷的中文修订

The Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire

为验证Carson等人的创造力成就问卷(Creative Achievement Questionnaire,CAQ)在中国成人群体的适用性,对其进行翻译、回译和文化调适后转换为中文版(C-CAQ)。以59名成人为被试,间隔3周的重测信度为斯皮尔曼相关系数ρ=0.77(p<0.01);以107名成人为被试,施测C-CAQ、托伦斯创造性思维测验(TTCT)的非常规用途任务(UUT)和补全图画任务(PCT)、中国大五人格简式版考察C-CAQ的聚合效度,结果发现与TTCT两个任务的多个指标及大五人格的开放性相关显著(与UUT任务各指标相关为:流畅性0.22、灵活性0.19、独创性0.26,与PCT任务的精致性相关为0.24,与大五人格的开放性维度相关0.29);用瑞文标准推理测验考察C-CAQ和智力的区分效度,结果显示二者为弱相关且不显著;以324名成人为被试对C-CAQ的10个领域进行探索性因子分析,结果支持问卷的领域特殊性构想;以122名成人为被试施测考夫曼创造力领域量表(K-DOCS)和C-CAQ以考察C-CAQ的效标效度,结果显示二者的科学、艺术领域及总分相关均显著(ρ=0.62, 0.47和0.41)。研究表明,CAQ问卷中文版在我国的成人群体具有较好的信度和效度。

To establish the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Carson et al.’s Creative Achievement Questionnaire(CAQ), the following steps were taken. Firstly, the original questionnaire was translated into Chinese, and then translated back into English, and finally culturally adjusted. Test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of CAQ(C-CAQ;Spearman’s ρ=0.77, p<0.01) was established in a sample of 59 adults. Convergent validity of C-CAQ was established with other measures of creative potential in a sample of 107 adults, including divergent thinking tests(Unusual Uses Task, UUT, with ρs ranging from 0.19 to 0.26;Picture Completion Task, with ρ of CAQ and PCT’s elaborateness being 0.24;all results were statistically significant) and Openness to Experience(The Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory brief version, CBF-PI-B, ρ=0.29, p<0.01). Discriminant validity of C-CAQ was established against IQ(Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, RSPM, ρ=0.20, p=0.12) in a sample of 59 adults. Construct validity of C-CAQ was established by exploratory factor analysis of CAQ’s 10 domains in a sample of 324 adults. Criterion validity of C-CAQ was established against everyday creativity performance(Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale, K-DOCS) in a sample of122 adults, with ρs of C-CAQ’s and K-DOCS’s science, arts and total scores respectively being 0.62, 0.47 and 0.41, and all statistically significant. The study result showed that the Chinese version of CAQ had acceptable validity and reliability among Chinese adults.