OToPS/Measures/Creative Adjective Checklist

The Open Teaching of Psychological Science (OToPs) template is a shell that we use for building new Wikiversity instrument pages on Wikiversity.

Overview

The Gough Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Checklist (CPS) is a checklist that measures a person’s perception of their creative abilities. It is part of Harrison G. Gough’s Adjective Checklist (ACL), and was created due to higher correlations with measures originally found in the ACL. It is a 30 item checklist that can either be self-reported or administered by a clinician. The scale contains a total of 30 adjectives that the respondent checks if they believe that adjective describes them. 18 of the adjectives are indicative and 12 are contraindicative. This allows the raw scores to range from -12 to +18. It is intended for adolescents and adults, but has modified versions for children. It was developed by Harrison G. Gough at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research in Berkeley in 1979. The CPS only takes a few minutes to complete, while the full ACL only takes 10 to 15 minutes. It has been translated into 21 languages and claims to be valid across cultures.. It is generally administered in conjunction with the ACL, but can be given individually. It is used in a variety of settings including clinical evaluation settings, clinical research, marketing research, and in businesses where it is advantageous to identify creative abilities in people.

Psychometrics

Reliability

Not all of the different types of reliability apply to the way that questionnaires are typically used. Internal consistency (whether all of the items measure the same construct) is not usually reported in studies of questionnaires; nor is inter-rater reliability (which would measure how similar peoples' responses were if the interviews were repeated again, or different raters listened to the same interview). Therefore, make adjustments as needed.

Reliability refers to whether the scores are reproducible. Unless otherwise specified, the reliability scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is the rubric for evaluating the reliability of scores on a measure for the purpose of evidence based assessment.

Evaluation for norms and reliability for the XXX (table from Youngstrom et al., extending Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)

Criterion	Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)	Explanation with references
Norms	Adequate	Multiple convenience samples and research studies, including both clinical and nonclinical samples
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, split half, etc.)	Excellent; too good for some contexts	Alphas routinely over .94 for both scales, suggesting that scales could be shortened for many uses
Interrater reliability	Not applicable	Designed originally as a self-report scale; parent and youth report correlate about the same as cross-informant scores correlate in general
Test-retest reliability (stability	Good	r = .73 over 15 weeks. Evaluated in initial studies, with data also show high stability in clinical trials
Repeatability	Not published	No published studies formally checking repeatability

Validity

Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures, diagnostic accuracy and w:discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity. Unless otherwise specified, the validity scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is a rubric for describing validity of test scores in the context of evidence-based assessment.

Evaluation of validity and utility for the XXX (table from Youngstrom et al., unpublished, extended from Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)

Criterion	Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)	Explanation with references
Content validity	Excellent	Covers both DSM diagnostic symptoms and a range of associated features
Contruct validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity)	Excellent	Shows Convergent validity with other symptom scales, longitudinal prediction of development of mood disorders, criterion validity via metabolic markers and associations with family history of mood disorder. Factor structure complicated; the inclusion of “biphasic” or “mixed” mood items creates a lot of cross-loading
Discriminative validity	Excellent	Multiple studies show that GBI scores discriminate cases with unipolar and bipolar mood disorders from other clinical disorders effect sizes are among the largest of existing scales
Validity generalization	Good	Used both as self-report and caregiver report; used in college student as well as outpatient and inpatient clinical samples; translated into multiple languages with good reliability
Treatment sensitivity	Good	Multiple studies show sensitivity to treatment effects comparable to using interviews by trained raters, including placebo-controlled, masked assignment trials Short forms appear to retain sensitivity to treatment effects while substantially reducing burden
Clinical utility	Good	Free (public domain), strong psychometrics, extensive research base. Biggest concerns are length and reading level. Short forms have less research, but are appealing based on reduced burden and promising data

Limitations

One of the major limitations about the scale is that there is little research done on reliability and validity of this specific scale, since the majority of the research is done on the complete ACL. Additionally, studies have shown it may need to be altered when used outside of the United States.

Development and history

Development of Creativity Scales

The scale was developed to fulfill a research and societal need to identify creative ability and potential within people. Creativity was valued in human endeavors and decision-making; however, there was little research on which factors and traits were most related to creativity. Prior studies had found there was little to no correlation between intellectual functioning and creativity. Research had found that artistic temperament and aesthetic dispositions were related to creativity, which led to the development of the Barron-Welsh Art Scale and Revised Art Scale. Personality traits and dispositions had been examined in regards to creativity using standard personality inventories and special scales and questionnaires. However, the topic of self-concept had not been researched yet. Therefore, Gough & Heilbrun created The Adjective Check List (ACL) in 1965 to assess appraising views of oneself. The ACL is a personality measure for adolescents and adults. It consists of 300 adjectives that describe a person's attributes. There are many subscales, one of which is the Creative Personality Scale.

Development of the CPS

Creativity had been looked at previously with the ACL. However, reliable and accurate scales had not been made. During the 1950's, six researchers developed their own creative ACL scales. In individual studies, the scales held high levels of validity. However, during the late 1950's a researcher used the 6 scales in a study and found very low correlations with the scales and criterion ratings of creativity. Due to the weak findings, there was a need to develop a stronger measure that was based on larger samples and a broader range of criteria.

Impact

• What was the impact of this assessment? How did it affect assessment in psychiatry, psychology and health care professionals?
• What can the assessment be used for in clinical settings? Can it be used to measure symptoms longitudinally? Developmentally?

Use in other populations

There is little information on the use of specifically the CPS. However, the ACL has been used since 1952 by many professionals and is one of the 100 most used and cited psychological tests. The ACL has been translated into 21 languages which include:

• Cantonese
• Danish
• Dutch
• English (UK)
• Finnish
• French
• French (Canada)
• German
• Hungarian
• Italian
• Japanese
• Mandarin
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Portuguese (br)
• Spanish
• Spanish (Argentina)
• Spanish (United States)
• Swedish
• Thai - 330 items
• Vietnamese

Scoring instructions and syntax

We have syntax in three major languages: R, SPSS, and SAS. All variable names are the same across all three, and all match the CSV shell that we provide as well as the Qualtrics export.

Hand scoring and general instructions

Click here for hand scoring and general administration instructions

Certain items are associated with high creativity. Higher scores overall indicate higher creativity. Participants mark each trait that applies to them. The thirty adjectives in the scale are provided with a (+) or (-) to designate if they are scored normal or reverse: capable (+), artificial (-), clever (+), cautious (-), confident (+), egotistical (+), commonplace (-), humorous (+), conservative (-), individualistic (+), conventional (-), informal (+), dissatisfied (-), insightful (+), suspicious (-), honest (-), intelligent (+), well-mannered (-), wide interests (+), inventive (+), original (+), narrow interests (-), reflective (+), sincere (-), resourceful (+), self-confident (+), sexy (+), submissive (-), snobbish (+), and unconventional (+).

CSV shell for sharing

Click here for CSV shell
<Paste link to CSV shell here>

Here is a shell data file that you could use in your own research. The variable names in the shell corresponds with the scoring code in the code for all three statistical programs.

Note that our CSV includes several demographic variables, which follow current conventions in most developmental and clinical psychology journals. You may want to modify them, depending on where you are working. Also pay attention to the possibility of "deductive identification" -- if we ask personal information in enough detail, then it may be possible to figure out the identity of a participant based on a combination of variables.

When different research projects and groups use the same variable names and syntax, it makes it easier to share the data and work together on integrative data analyses or "mega" analyses (which are different and better than meta-analysis in that they are combining the raw data, versus working with summary descriptive statistics).

R/SPSS/SAS syntax

Click here for R code
R code goes here

Click here for SPSS code

The way that Qualtrics is set up, each item is 1 or missing (not zero). Creative Adjective Checklist. desc /var gcac01_1 to gcac01_30. The way Qualtrics is handling the variables, each item is 1 or missing, not zero. This fix will give a missing case "legit looking" scores of zeros on all items. recode gcac01_1 to gcac01_30 (1=1) (else=0). reliability /var gcac01_1 to gcac01_30 /sum total. RECODE gcac01_1 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac01fix. RECODE gcac01_2 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac02fix. RECODE gcac01_3 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac03fix. RECODE gcac01_4 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac04fix. RECODE gcac01_5 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac05fix. RECODE gcac01_6 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac06fix. RECODE gcac01_7 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac07fix. RECODE gcac01_8 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac08fix. RECODE gcac01_9 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac09fix. RECODE gcac01_10 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac10fix. RECODE gcac01_11 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac11fix. RECODE gcac01_12 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac12fix. RECODE gcac01_13 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac13fix. RECODE gcac01_14 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac14fix. RECODE gcac01_15 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac15fix. RECODE gcac01_16 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac16fix. RECODE gcac01_17 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac17fix. RECODE gcac01_18 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac18fix. RECODE gcac01_19 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac19fix. RECODE gcac01_20 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac20fix. RECODE gcac01_21 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac21fix. RECODE gcac01_22 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac22fix. RECODE gcac01_23 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac23fix. RECODE gcac01_24 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac24fix. RECODE gcac01_25 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac25fix. RECODE gcac01_26 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac26fix. RECODE gcac01_27 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac27fix. RECODE gcac01_28 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac28fix. RECODE gcac01_29 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac29fix. RECODE gcac01_30 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO gcac30fix. EXECUTE. Var labels gcac01fix 'Capable' /gcac02fix 'Artificial' / gcac03fix 'Clever' /gcac04fix 'Cautious' /gcac05fix 'Confident' /gcac06fix 'Egotistical' /gcac07fix 'Commonplace' /gcac08fix 'Humorous' /gcac09fix 'Conservative' /gcac10fix 'Individualistic' /gcac11fix 'Conventional' /gcac12fix 'Informal' /gcac13fix 'Dissatisfied' /gcac14fix 'Insightful' /gcac15fix 'Suspicious' /gcac16fix 'Honest' /gcac17fix 'Intelligent' /gcac18fix 'Well mannered' /gcac19fix 'Wide interests' /gcac20fix 'Inventive' /gcac21fix 'Original' /gcac22fix 'Narrow interests' /gcac23fix 'Reflective' /gcac24fix 'Sincere' /gcac25fix 'Resourceful' /gcac26fix 'Self-confident' /gcac27fix 'Sexy' /gcac28fix 'Submissive' /gcac29fix 'Snobbish' /gcac30fix 'Unconventional'. compute gcacpositive=sum.16( gcac01fix, gcac03fix, gcac05fix, gcac06fix, gcac08fix, gcac10fix, gcac12fix, gcac14fix, gcac17fix, gcac19fix, gcac20fix, gcac21fix, gcac23fix, gcac25fix, gcac26fix, gcac27fix, gcac29fix, gcac30fix). compute gcacreverse=12-sum.10( gcac02fix, gcac04fix, gcac07fix, gcac09fix, gcac11fix, gcac13fix, gcac16fix, gcac22fix, gcac18fix, gcac24fix, gcac28fix, gcac15fix). reliability /var gcac01fix, gcac03fix, gcac05fix, gcac06fix, gcac08fix, gcac10fix, gcac12fix, gcac14fix, gcac17fix, gcac19fix, gcac20fix, gcac21fix, gcac23fix, gcac25fix, gcac26fix, gcac27fix, gcac29fix, gcac30fix /sum total. reliability /var gcac01fix to gcac30fix /sum total. compute gcacpomp = (gcacpositive+gcacreverse)/30. var labels gcacpomp 'Gough Creative Adjective Checklist POMP Total' /gcacpositive 'Gough Creative Adjective Checklist - 18 positive keyed items raw total' /gcacreverse 'Gough Creative Adjective Checklist - 12 reverse keyed items raw total'. desc /var gcacpomp. temp. select if gcacpomp>0. save translate outFILE='C:\Users\eay\Dropbox\EAY WIP\teaching\@Holding tank\Tidy Frames for items\gcac.csv' /type csv /fieldnames /replace /keep gender age howasian raceasianyn birthcounasianyn schoolasianyn collegeasianyn gcac01_1 to gcac01_30. desc /var gender age howasian raceasianyn birthcounasianyn schoolasianyn collegeasianyn gcac01_1 to gcac01_30. corr /var caqpomp gcacpomp gcacpositive gcacreverse.

Click here for SAS code
SAS code goes here

See also

• Adjective Check List Wikipedia Page

Example page

• General Behavior Inventory

OToPS usage history

|- !Qualtrics scoring |Variable name of internally scored variable: gcacpomp gcacreverse gcac01_1 to gcac01_30

Notes on internal scoring:

Scores are POMP-ed. There have been slight issues with the SPSS scoring. Contact Dr. Youngstrom for more details.

|- !Content expert |Name: Harrison G. Gough Institution/Country: University of California

|}