K-DOCS-BRV: una versión reducida y validada de la Escala de Dominios de la Creatividad de Kaufman para su uso en Brasil
Felipe Alexandre de Souza Félix Nunes
Carlos Alberto Gonçalves
PDF (English)
FLIP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los autores que publiquen en esta Revista aceptan las siguientes condiciones:
Acta Colombiana de Psicología se guía por las normas internacionales sobre propiedad intelectual y derechos de autor, y de manera particular el artículo 58 de la Constitución Política de Colombia, la Ley 23 de 1982 y el Acuerdo 172 del 30 de Septiembre de 2010 (Reglamento de propiedad intelectual de la Universidad Católica de Colombia)
Los trabajos publicados en la revista se registran bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta Revista.
Resumen
La Escala de Dominios de Creatividad de Kaufman (K-DOCS) evalúa cinco áreas de la creatividad, pero su aplicación requiere un cuestionario de 50 ítems. Esto hace necesaria una versión abreviada para investigaciones con limitaciones de tiempo. Este estudio propone una versión de 19 ítems de la K-DOCS adaptada para Brasil, denominada K-DOCSBRV, y analiza sus propiedades psicométricas. Se recopilaron dos muestras independientes mediante SurveyMonkey para realizar análisis factorial exploratorio (n = 962) y confirmatorio (n = 1456). La versión breve, con 19 ítems, fue seleccionada mediante análisis factorial exploratorio (prueba de esfericidad de Bartlett: χ² = 31608,243; gl = 1225; p < 0,001; KMO = 0,91) y, al comparar los resultados del análisis factorial confirmatorio (χ² = 992,32; gl = 142; p < 0,001; CFI = 0,939; TLI = 0,927; RMSEA = 0,064; SRMR = 0,060), superó a todos los demás modelos en términos de ajuste. El resultado aporta evidencia que valida que la K-DOCS-BRV ofrece una alternativa eficaz para evaluar la creatividad en Brasil, especialmente en contextos con limitaciones de tiempo, y constituye una herramienta práctica y confiable para investigadores y profesionales.
Citas
Acar, S., Cevik, E., Fesli, E., Bozkurt, R. N., & Kaufman, J. C. (2024). Testing the domain specificity of creativity with Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale: A meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 58(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.641
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.002
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). The amusement park theoretical model of creativity: An attempt to bridge the domain-specificity/generality gap. In The Cambridge handbook of creativity across domains (pp. 8–17). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.002
Beghetto, R. A. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.6
Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos entre culturas: algumas considerações. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22(53), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Coste, J., Guillemin, F., Pouchot, J., & Fermanian, J. (1997). Methodological approaches to shortening composite measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00363-0
Damásio, B. F. (2013). Contribuições da Análise Fatorial Confirmatória Multigrupo (AFCMG) na avaliação de invariância de instrumentos psicométricos. Psico-USF, 18(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712013000200005
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Franke, G. R., Rapp, A., & “Mick” Andzulis, J. (2013). Using shortened scales in sales research: Risks, benefits, and strategies. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 33(3), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134330306
Glaveanu, V. P. (2019). The creativity reader. Oxford University Press.
Glaveanu, V. P., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). The creativity matrix: Spotlights and blind spots in our understanding of the phenomenon. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 884–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.417
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados (6th ed.). Bookman Editora.
Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, J. F. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26(3), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349
Katsikatsou, M., Moustaki, I., Yang-Wallentin, F., & Jöreskog, K. G. (2012). Pairwise likelihood estimation for factor analysis models with ordinal data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 56(12), 4243–4258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2012.04.010
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029751
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14(2), 15–25.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kemper, C. J., Trapp, S., Kathmann, N., Samuel, D. B., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Short versus long scales in clinical assessment: Exploring the trade-off between resources saved and psychometric quality lost using two measures of obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Assessment, 26(5), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118810057
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications.
Lessa, J. P. A., Campos, C. R., Oliveira, K. S., & Primi, R. (2020). Adaptação e evidências de validade baseadas na estrutura interna da Escala de Domínios de Criatividade: Adaptation and validity study for the Brazilian population. Psico, 51(3), e34502–e34502. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2020.3.34502
McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000074
Miroshnik, K. G., Shcherbakova, O. V., & Kaufman, J. C. (2022). Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale: Relationship to occupation and measurement invariance across gender. Creativity Research Journal, 34(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1953823
Nguyen, H. V., & Waller, N. G. (2022). Local minima and factor rotations in exploratory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 28(5), 1122–1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000467
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8
Resolução n° 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012, Conselho Nacional de Saúde (2012). https://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. Robinson, M. A. (2018). Using multi-item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management. Human Resource Management, 57(3), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21852 Santos, M. A. dos, Wechsler, S. M., Nader, S. M., Barboza, C. M., & Mundim, M. C. B. (2020). Criatividade na opinião de leigos: Uma comparação transcultural. Revista de Psicología, 38(2), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202002.005
Sen, S., & Yörük, S. (2023). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 812–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.620
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press. Tamannaeifar, M. R., & Motaghedifard, M. (2014). Subjective well-being and its sub-scales among students: The study of role of creativity and self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.003
Tan, C.-S., Tan, S.-A., Cheng, S.-M., Hashim, I. H. M., & Ong, A. W.-H. (2021). Development and preliminary validation of the 20-item Kaufman domains of Creativity Scale for use with Malaysian populations. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1946–1957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0124-8
Walia, C. (2019). A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787
Weisberg, R., Pichot, N., Bonetto, E., Pavani, J.-B., Arciszewski, T., & Bonnardel, N. (2021). From explicit to implicit theories of creativity and back: The relevance of naive criteria in defining creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(3), 839–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.492
Zhang, S., Zhong, L., Zhang, Y., Ren, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). Development and validation of the Kaufman domains of creativity scale-Chinese short version (K-DOCS-CSV). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101268
