OToPS/Measures/Creative Adjective Checklist

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Overview[edit | edit source]

The Gough Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Checklist (CPS) is a checklist that measures a person’s perception of their creative abilities[1]. 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[2]. 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[3]. It has been translated into 21 languages and claims to be valid across cultures.[4]. 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[edit | edit source]

Reliability[edit | edit source]

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[citation needed]
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[citation needed]
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[5]
Test-retest reliability (stability Good r = .73 over 15 weeks. Evaluated in initial studies,[6] with data also show high stability in clinical trials[citation needed]
Repeatability Not published No published studies formally checking repeatability

Validity[edit | edit source]

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[6]
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,[7][8][9] criterion validity via metabolic markers[6][10] and associations with family history of mood disorder.[11] Factor structure complicated;[6][12] 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[6][13][14] effect sizes are among the largest of existing scales[15]
Validity generalization Good Used both as self-report and caregiver report; used in college student[12][16] as well as outpatient[13][17][18] 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[19][20] Short forms appear to retain sensitivity to treatment effects while substantially reducing burden[20][21]
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[edit | edit source]

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[22].

Development and history[edit | edit source]

Development of Creativity Scales[edit | edit source]

The scale was developed to fulfill a research and societal need to identify creative ability and potential within people[23]. 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[edit | edit source]

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[24]. 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[edit | edit source]

  • 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[edit | edit source]

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. [25] The ACL has been translated into 21 languages which include[26]:

  • 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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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, 

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[edit | edit source]

Example page[edit | edit source]

OToPS usage history[edit | edit source]

|- !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


References[edit | edit source]

  1. Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398
  2. Kaduson, H. G. (1991). Concurrent Validity Of The Creative Personality Scale Of The Adjective Check List. Psychological Reports, 69(6), 601. doi:10.2466/pr0.69.6.601-602
  3. http://www.mindgarden.com/173-adjective-check-list#horizontalTab3
  4. http://www.mindgarden.com/173-adjective-check-list#horizontalTab3
  5. Achenbach, TM; McConaughy, SH; Howell, CT (March 1987). "Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.". Psychological Bulletin 101 (2): 213–32. PMID 3562706. 
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Depue, Richard A.; Slater, Judith F.; Wolfstetter-Kausch, Heidi; Klein, Daniel; Goplerud, Eric; Farr, David (1981). "A behavioral paradigm for identifying persons at risk for bipolar depressive disorder: A conceptual framework and five validation studies.". Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90 (5): 381–437. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.90.5.381. 
  7. Klein, DN; Dickstein, S; Taylor, EB; Harding, K (February 1989). "Identifying chronic affective disorders in outpatients: validation of the General Behavior Inventory.". Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 57 (1): 106–11. PMID 2925959. 
  8. Mesman, Esther; Nolen, Willem A.; Reichart, Catrien G.; Wals, Marjolein; Hillegers, Manon H.J. (May 2013). "The Dutch Bipolar Offspring Study: 12-Year Follow-Up". American Journal of Psychiatry 170 (5): 542–549. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030401. 
  9. Reichart, CG; van der Ende, J; Wals, M; Hillegers, MH; Nolen, WA; Ormel, J; Verhulst, FC (December 2005). "The use of the GBI as predictor of bipolar disorder in a population of adolescent offspring of parents with a bipolar disorder.". Journal of affective disorders 89 (1-3): 147–55. PMID 16260043. 
  10. Depue, RA; Kleiman, RM; Davis, P; Hutchinson, M; Krauss, SP (February 1985). "The behavioral high-risk paradigm and bipolar affective disorder, VIII: Serum free cortisol in nonpatient cyclothymic subjects selected by the General Behavior Inventory.". The American journal of psychiatry 142 (2): 175–81. PMID 3970242. 
  11. Klein, DN; Depue, RA (August 1984). "Continued impairment in persons at risk for bipolar affective disorder: results of a 19-month follow-up study.". Journal of abnormal psychology 93 (3): 345–7. PMID 6470321. 
  12. 12.0 12.1 Pendergast, Laura L.; Youngstrom, Eric A.; Brown, Christopher; Jensen, Dane; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Alloy, Lauren B. (2015). "Structural invariance of General Behavior Inventory (GBI) scores in Black and White young adults.". Psychological Assessment 27 (1): 21–30. doi:10.1037/pas0000020. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 Danielson, CK; Youngstrom, EA; Findling, RL; Calabrese, JR (February 2003). "Discriminative validity of the general behavior inventory using youth report.". Journal of abnormal child psychology 31 (1): 29–39. PMID 12597697. 
  14. Findling, RL; Youngstrom, EA; Danielson, CK; DelPorto-Bedoya, D; Papish-David, R; Townsend, L; Calabrese, JR (February 2002). "Clinical decision-making using the General Behavior Inventory in juvenile bipolarity.". Bipolar disorders 4 (1): 34–42. PMID 12047493. 
  15. Youngstrom, Eric A.; Genzlinger, Jacquelynne E.; Egerton, Gregory A.; Van Meter, Anna R. (2015). "Multivariate meta-analysis of the discriminative validity of caregiver, youth, and teacher rating scales for pediatric bipolar disorder: Mother knows best about mania.". Archives of Scientific Psychology 3 (1): 112–137. doi:10.1037/arc0000024. 
  16. Alloy, LB; Abramson, LY; Hogan, ME; Whitehouse, WG; Rose, DT; Robinson, MS; Kim, RS; Lapkin, JB (August 2000). "The Temple-Wisconsin Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression Project: lifetime history of axis I psychopathology in individuals at high and low cognitive risk for depression.". Journal of abnormal psychology 109 (3): 403–18. PMID 11016110. 
  17. Klein, Daniel N.; Dickstein, Susan; Taylor, Ellen B.; Harding, Kathryn (1989). "Identifying chronic affective disorders in outpatients: Validation of the General Behavior Inventory.". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57 (1): 106–111. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.106. 
  18. Youngstrom, EA; Findling, RL; Danielson, CK; Calabrese, JR (June 2001). "Discriminative validity of parent report of hypomanic and depressive symptoms on the General Behavior Inventory.". Psychological assessment 13 (2): 267–76. PMID 11433802. 
  19. Findling, RL; Youngstrom, EA; McNamara, NK; Stansbrey, RJ; Wynbrandt, JL; Adegbite, C; Rowles, BM; Demeter, CA et al. (January 2012). "Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled long-term maintenance study of aripiprazole in children with bipolar disorder.". The Journal of clinical psychiatry 73 (1): 57–63. PMID 22152402. 
  20. 20.0 20.1 Youngstrom, E; Zhao, J; Mankoski, R; Forbes, RA; Marcus, RM; Carson, W; McQuade, R; Findling, RL (March 2013). "Clinical significance of treatment effects with aripiprazole versus placebo in a study of manic or mixed episodes associated with pediatric bipolar I disorder.". Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology 23 (2): 72–9. PMID 23480324. 
  21. Ong, ML; Youngstrom, EA; Chua, JJ; Halverson, TF; Horwitz, SM; Storfer-Isser, A; Frazier, TW; Fristad, MA et al. (1 July 2016). "Comparing the CASI-4R and the PGBI-10 M for Differentiating Bipolar Spectrum Disorders from Other Outpatient Diagnoses in Youth.". Journal of abnormal child psychology. PMID 27364346. 
  22. Park, S. H. (2013). A Study on Item-Analysis of Gough’s A Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. Current Research on Education. doi:10.14257/astl.2013.36.13
  23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398
  24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1398
  25. Gough, H.G.; Heilbrun, Jr., A.B. (2007). Adjective Check List Manual (1983 ed.). Palo Alto, CA: CPP, Inc.
  26. http://www.mindgarden.com/173-adjective-check-list#horizontalTab4