請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/21104
標題: The Development of Imagination Test of Concept Combination (ITCC)
「概念結合想像力測驗」之編製
作者: Wang, Yu-Ming
王愉敏
關鍵字: Concept combination
概念結合
Imagination
Scale measurement
想像力
量表編製
出版社: 企業管理學系所
引用: 一、 中文部份 (1)圖書 王笑東譯(2003)。創造力激發訓練。臺中市:晨星。 毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台(2000)。創造力研究。台北:心理。 朱智賢(1989)。心理學大詞典。北京:北京大學出版社。 林幸台、王木榮(1994)。威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊。台北:心理。 吳靜吉、高泉豐、王敬仁、丁興祥(1981)。拓弄思語文創造思考測驗(乙式)指導及研究手冊。台北:遠流。 陳龍安(1995)。創造思考教學的理論與實際。台北:心理。 郭有遹(1973)。創造心理學。台北:正中。 張世彗(2003)。創造力─理論、技術/技法與培育。台北:作者。 張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華。 Lack, A.(2004)。絕對創造力。(古益靈譯)。台北:海洋文化事業。 Osborn, A. F. (1964)。應用想像力。(邵一杭譯)。台北:協志工業。 (2)期刊論文 任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲(2004)。創造力測量的輔助工具:中文遠距聯想量表的發展。應用心理研究,21,195-217。 林右敏(2007)。在圖文聯想遊戲中探討玩家的思考風格對聯想歷程的影響。國立交通大學理學院網路學習學程碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。 林幸台(1995),威廉斯創造力測驗修訂報告。特殊教育研究學刊,11,133-149。 林緯倫、連韻文、任純慧(2005)。想得多是想得好的前提嗎?探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色。中華心理學刊,47(3),211-227。 吳靜吉(1999)。新編創造思考測驗研究。學生輔導,62,132-147。 吳靜吉、丁興祥、邱皓政(2002)。創造力的發展與實踐。應用心理研究,15,15-247。 吳清麟(2009)。Mednick聯結理論之檢驗暨中文遠距聯想測驗之解題歷程分析。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。 思凱(2007)。自由聯想。諮商與輔導,257,32-32。 孫志誠、嚴貞(2003)。創造力評量的內涵與方法初探。設計研究期刊,3,184-193。 黃文毅(2004)。以概念結合所產生之新屬性探討創造的認知歷程。國立交通大學工業工程與管理學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。 黃博聖、陳學志、黃鴻程、劉政宏(2009)。「詞彙聯想策略擴散性思考測驗」之編製。測驗學刊,56(2),153-177。 葉錦燈(2002)。聯結理論在創造性問題解決中之角色。國立屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。 陳海泓(2001)。如何利用圖畫故事發展而同的創造力。語文教育通訊,23,64-78。 陳龍安(2005)。創造思考的策略與技法。教育資料集刊,30,201-266。 蔡淑桂(1999)。想像力和創造歷程。創造思考教育,9,54-56。 (3)網路資源 國際創造力研究中心。(http://www.buffalostate.edu/centers/creativity/)。 中央研究院語言學研究所。「現代漢語語料庫詞頻統計」。(http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/CWordfreq.html)。 (4)其他 王精文(2001)。創造力與績效之關係。創造力與創意設計師資培育計畫書-商學類計畫書。台北:教育部顧問室-人文社會科學中程教育改進計畫。 吳靜吉、陳嘉成、林偉文(1999)。創造力量表簡介。國科會研究結案報告,未出版。 洪瑞雲、王精文(1994)。Torrance 創造思考測驗,未發表。 洪瑞雲(2006)。創新的認知歷程之探討:概念結合時新屬性產生的歷程。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號:NSC 95-2511-S-009-006),未出版。 胡志偉(2005)。造成中文字與中文詞之朗讀詞頻效果的原因。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號:NSC 93-2413-H-002-019),未出版。 陳學志(1999)。認知及認知的自我監控─中文詞聯想常模的建立。國科會研究結案報告。 二、英文部份 (1)Book Alencar, E. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2003). Criatividade: Múltiplas perspectivas. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and Divergent Think: A Task Specific Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (1997b). Polysemy in conceptual combination: Testing the constraint theory of combination. In Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cramer, P. (1968). Word association. New York: Academic press. Cuieford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental Statistics in psychology & education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Davis, D. (1986). Technological Innovation and Organizational Change, Management Technological Innovation. CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. NY: Balch & Company. Eberle, R. F. (1971). Scamper: Games for imagination development. New York: D.O.K. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw Hill. Huba, G. J., Singer, J. L., Aneshensel, C. S., & Antrobus, J. S. (1982). The Short Imaginal Processes Inventory. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approached to problem solving. IA: Kendall-Hunt. Isaksen, S. G., Schryver, D. L., Dorval, K. B., McCluskey, K. W., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Facilitative leadership: Making a difference with creative problem solving. NY: Creative Problem Solving Group. Kerr, B., & Gagliardi, C. (2003). Measuring creativity in research and practice. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.). Positive psychological assessmente: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Acadmic Press. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Revised ed.). NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Pagel, W. (1958). Paracelsus: An introduction to philosophical medicine in the era of the renaissance. Switzerland: Karger. Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: State University of New York College. Parnes, S. J. (1988). Visionizing. East Aurora, NY: D.O.K. Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Guide to creative action. NY: Scribner’s. Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Understanding the history of CPS. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Facilitative leadership: Making a difference with CPS (pp. 35-53). IA: Kendall/Hunt. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Wisniewski, E. J., & Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241-284). Amsterdam: North Holland. Yates, F. A. (1966). The art of memory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (2) Journal Articles Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., Ferrando, M., Oliveira, E., & Ferrandiz, C. (2008). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 53-58. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167. Ansburg, P. (2003). Individual Differences in Problem Solving via Insight. Current Psychology, 19, 143-146. Bear, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 143-146. Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (2003a). Normative data for 144 compound remoteassociate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 634-639. Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A., & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 615-631. Carlson, F. K. (1964). Developing an original person. Elementary English, 41, 268-278. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. Coney, J., & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: A new approach to Mednick’s theory of associative hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), 109-132. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349. Dexter, E. S. (1943). What is imagination? The Journal of General Psychology, 28, 133-138. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842. Estes, Z. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2000a). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34. Estes, Z., & Ward, T. B. (2002). The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal 14(2), 149-156. Fodor, E. M. (1999). Subclinical inclination toward manic-depression and creative performance on the Remote Associates Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1273-1283. Forbach, G. B., & Evans, R. G. (1981). The remote associates test as a predictor of productivity in brainstorming groups. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 333-339. Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and the Dual-Process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 365-389. Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of Noun–noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 236-254. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 71-87. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 637-646. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293. Heatherton, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2000). Interpersonal evaluations following threats to self: Role of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 725-736. Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450-464. Kaltsounis, B., & Honeywell, L. (1980). Instruments useful in studying creative behaviour and creative talent. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 14, 56-67. Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test item. Educational Psychology, 30, 17-24. Khatena, J. (1971). Something about myself: A brief screening device for identifying creatively gifted children and adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(4), 262-292. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(3), 622-629. Kirton, M. J. (1988). Adaptors and innovations: Problem solvers in organizations. In: Grønhaug, K., & Kaufmann, G. (Eds). Innovation: A Crass-Disciplinary Perspective, 65-85. Martindale, C., Hines, D., Mitchell, L., & Covello, E. (1984). EEG alpha asymmetry and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 77-86. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69(3), 220-232. Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Jung, C. C. (1964). Continual association as a function of level of creativity and type of verbal stimulus. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(5), 511-515. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science , 12, 529-562. Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of ‘‘brainstorming’’ instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychologist, 50, 171-176. Quillian, M. R. (1962). A revised design for an understanding machine. Mechanical Translation, 7, 17-29. Reichling, M. J. (1990). Images of Imagination, Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(4), 282-293. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Creativity or creativities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 370-382. Thagard, P. (1997). Coherent and creative conceptual combinations, in : T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & J. Vaid (Eds) Creative thought. American Psychological Association, 129-141. Thomas, N. J. T. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science 23(2), 207-245. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guilding Creative Talent. New York: Prentice-Hall. Torrance, E. P. & Khatena, J. (1970). What kind of person are you? Gifted Child Quarterly, 14(2), 71-75. Trotman, D. (2006). Evaluation the imaginative: Situated practice and the conditions for professional judgment in imaginative education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 7(3). Wang, C. W., & Horng, R. Y. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 29(3), 247-254. Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive psychology, 27, 1-40. Weinstein, S. & Graves, R. E. (2001). Creativity, schizotypy, and laterality. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 6. 131-46. Weinstein, S., & Graves, R. E. (2002). Are creativity and schizotypy products of aright hemisphere bias? Brain and Cognition, 49. 138-51. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 434-453. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 167-183. Wisniewski, E. J., & Middleton, E. L. (2002). Of bucket bowls and coffee cup bowls: Spatial alignment in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 1-23. Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2005). Frequency of relation type as a determinant of conceptual combination: A reanalysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(1), 169-174. Yu, B., Zhang, W., Jing, Q., Peng, R., Zhang, G., & Simon, H. A. (1985). STM capacity for Chinese and English language materials. Memory and Cognition, 13(3), 202-207 (3) Electronic Resources Jason Thompson (2009). Emotionally dumb: An overview of alexithymia. Soul Books, ISBN 978-0-646-51251-8(E-book). (4)Others Almeida L., & Prieto L. (2007). Creativity: The question of its construct validity. Paper presented to the BERA Annual Conference, held in London 5th – 8th September 2007.
摘要: Based on the theory of concept combination, this study develops a scale measurement called “Imagination Test of Concept Combination, ITCC”. The tested items are consisted of two unrelated concepts such as “cell phone-justice”, the respondent is required to think up a word to connect these two concepts such as “police”, and then explain the association process and reasons. Scale measurement items are collected from nouns in nature, artifact, and abstract, as well as from the list of contemporary Chinese in the corpus which developed by the research teams from institutes of linguistics of Taiwan Academia Sinica. Through randomly combining these nouns (noun-noun pairing) and after pretesting, the scale measurement is made up of 18 items, the respondent can answer the questionnaire in free-writing way. The purpose of this scale measurement is to test level of imagination of students, and provide references for university in designing curriculum and activity. Data are collected from 602 undergraduate and graduate students. Based on statistical data, items with more than 5% respondents with the same answers are given 0 point, 1 point for between 2%-4%, and 2 points for under 2%, in order to establish the test's score handbook . The statistical result showed that each item and total score is significantly correlated, representing the discrimination of the scale measurement. The reliability of the scale measurement is acceptable (Cronbach's α=.465), the reliability is retested after a week later (Cronbach's α=.878) represents the stability of the scale measurement; the rater reliability is .854. Besides, in terms of validity, as compared to Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking linear and circle tests, this scale measurement indicated that fluency and flexibility are not significantly correlated; at the same time, as compared to “Something About Myself” scale measurement and “What Kind of Person Are You” scale measurement of the creative perception scale measurement, this scale measurement is not significantly related to these scale measurements, this indicates that the imagination test developed in this study is distinguished from creation tests. Furthermore, this study also adapts the originality scoring method of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, due to both belong to the same measurement construct, hence the result showed that they are significantly low correlated. In summary, the results indicated that the scale measurement test of this study has fairly good reliability and validity.
本研究依據概念結合理論發展一份「概念結合想像力測驗(Imagination Test of Concept Combination, ITCC)」,測驗題目使用兩個完全不相關的概念組合而成,如「手機―正義」,要求受測者想出兩者之間的關聯詞句,如「警察」,並說明其聯想過程或理由。本研究搜尋自然類、人造類、抽象類的名詞作為量表題材,並使用中央研究院語言學研究所之研究團隊蒐集的語料庫,所統計出現代漢語詞頻查詢,經由隨機組合名詞―名詞配對,透過預試後形成18題的想像力測驗,採開放性文字填答方式,本測驗主要用來衡量學生的想像力程度,並作為學校課程或活動設計之參考。本研究以602位大學生與研究生為研究對象,並將施測所得資料進行統計,每題超過5%受試者有相同反應的給予0分;介於2%至4.99%之間者給予1分;低於2%者則給予2分,並以此基準建立本測驗之評分手冊。 研究結果,經由項目分析後顯示各題項與總分之間達顯著相關,表示本測驗試題具有鑑別度。信度方面,Cronbach’s α係數為.465,尚在可接受的範圍內;隔週之重測信度為.878,表示本量表具有良好的穩定性;評分者信度為.852。而在效度方面,與托倫斯創造思考之直線及圓圈測驗,測得之流暢力與應變力呈現無顯著相關;與創造性知覺量表之我自己量表及你是那一種人量表,亦呈現無顯著相關,表示本研究發展之想像力測驗與創造力之間具有區別能力;另本測驗採托倫斯創造思考測驗之獨創力計分方式,由於兩者屬於相同的衡量構面,因此結果顯示兩者呈現低度顯著相關。綜合上述研究結果顯示本測驗具有良好的信度與效度。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/21104
其他識別: U0005-0607201123193800
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-0607201123193800
顯示於類別:企業管理學系所

文件中的檔案:
沒有與此文件相關的檔案。


在 DSpace 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。