From General to Contextual: Developing a Subject-Specific Scientific Creativity Test on Simple Machines
), Riva Ismawati(3), Galih Albarra Shidiq(4)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
(2) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
(3) Department of Science Education, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
(4) Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya Department of Educational Technology and Communications, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Corresponding Author
This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing junior high school students’ scientific creativity based on the Scientific Structure Creativity Model (SSCM) in the topic of Work and Simple Machines. The research employed a Research and Development method using the 4D model (Define, Design, Develop, and Disseminate), and was limited to the Develop stage. The research subjects consisted of 100 eighth-grade students from four public junior high schools in Magelang City, selected through purposive sampling, and nine validators (four lecturers and five science teachers) for content validity testing. The define stage included a needs analysis based on the SSCM, a review of the subject matter, and an analysis of learning outcomes. The design stage involved constructing a test blueprint comprising seven essay items and a scoring rubric based on fluency, flexibility, and originality. The develop stage included expert validation, instrument revision, and a limited field trial. The instrument consisted of seven essay questions, adapted from the seven aspects of the SSCM, along with an expert validation sheet assessing content, construct, and language. Content validity was analyzed using Aiken’s V, construct validity was examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis, reliability was measured using McDonald's Omega, and age differences were tested using One-Way ANOVA. The results indicated Aiken’s V values ranging from 0.786 to 0.819, demonstrating good content validity. The KMO value of 0.655 and a significant Bartlett’s Test (p < 0.001) indicated that the data were suitable for factor analysis. McDonald's Omega yielded a value of 0.739, indicating adequate internal consistency. The ANOVA test (p = 0.775) showed no significant difference in scientific creativity scores between students aged 13 and 14 years. The findings indicate that the developed instrument is valid and demonstrates adequate reliability for measuring junior high school students’ scientific creativity in the topic of Work and Simple Machines.
Keywords: instrument development, scientific creativity, scientific structure creativity model, work, simple machines.
Aschauer, W., Haim, K., & Weber, C. (2022). A contribution to scientific creativity: a validation study measuring divergent problem solving ability. Creativity Research Journal,34(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1968656
Astutik, S., Susantini, E., Madlazim, N., M., & Supeno. (2020). The effectiveness of collaborative creativity learning models (CCL) on secondary schools scientific creativity skills. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 525-238. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13336a
Bahar, K., & June Maker, C. (2025). A new perspective on scoring children’s originality: a standards-based criterion-referenced assessment approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1545396
Budiastuti, D., & Bandur, A. (2018). Validitas dan reliabilitas penelitian. Mitra Wacana Media.
Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity of school-age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1704_4
Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13
De Vries, H. B., & Lubart, T. I. (2019). Scientific creativity: divergent and convergent thinking and the impact of culture. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.184
Dewi, S., Suwarna, I. P., & Suryadi, A. (2024). The effect of creative problem-solving model to enhance scientific creativity: study in static fluid physics learning. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 12(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v12i1.17668
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Eroglu, S., & Bektas, O. (2022). The Effect of STEM applications on the scientific creativity of 9th-grade students. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 8(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1059124
Fadllan, A., Hartono, S., & Saptono, S. (2019). Analysis of students’ scientific creativity and science process skills at UIN Walisongo Semarang. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1321). Institute of Physics Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1321/3/032099
Farag, K. A., Mohamed, M. A., Abobaker, Z. M., Binsaud, B. M., & Jabe, A. M. (2025). The impact of sample size on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: a simulation study. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11(6s).
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
Guinovart-Pedescoll, M., & Palau, R. (2025). Design and validation of a self-perception instrument on the use of scientific knowledge in teaching practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 14(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44322-024-00026-5
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. but…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hebebci, M. T., & Usta, E. (2022). The effects of integrated STEM education practices on problem solving skills, scientific creativity, and critical thinking dispositions. Participatory Educational Research, 9(6), 358-379. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.143.9.6
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: a systemic view for change. Educational Technology & Society, 19(23), 27–37.
Hong, O., Park, M. H., & Song, J. (2022). The assessment of science classroom creativity: scale development. International Journal of Science Education, 44(8), 1356–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2077466
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
Hu, W., Wu, B., Jia, X., Yi, X., Duan, C., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students’ scientific creativity: the “learn to think” intervention program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.20
Isnaini, I., Atmazaki, A., Ahda, Y., Lufri, L., Elizar, E., Amran, A., … Hasan, A. (2023). Analysis of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration skills (4c) for junior high school students, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-166-1_27
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kirana, T. (2020). Development of OCIPSE learning model to increase students’ scientific creativity in natural science learning. International Journal of Recent Educational Education, 1(1).
Murti, B. (2011). Validitas dan reliabilitas pengukuran. Semarang: Uns.
Nogueira, S. I., Almeida, L. S., & Lima, T. S. (2017). Two tracks of thought: a structural model of the test for creative thinking-drawing production (TCT-DP). Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1303312
Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9, 11. https://doi.org/10.7275/ktzq-jq66
Prahani, B. K., Suprapto, N., Rachmadiarti, F., Sholahuddin, A., Mahtari, S., Suyidno, & Siswanto, J. (2021). Online scientific creativity learning (OSCL) in science education to improve students’ scientific creativity in covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(Special Issue), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.73
Rababah, L. (2018). An adapted version of torrance test of creative thinking (TTCT) In EFL/ESL writing: a rubric scoring and a review of studies. International Journal of English and Education, 7(2).
Retnawati, H. (2016). Analisis kuantitatif instrumen penelitian (panduan peneliti, mahasiswa, dan psikometrian). Yogyakarta: Paramu Publishing.
Ritter, S. M., Gu, X., Crijns, M., & Biekens, P. (2020). Fostering students’ creative thinking skills by means of a one-year creativity training program. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0229773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773
Rosidin, U., Herliani, D., & Viyanti. (2023). Development of assessment instruments in project-based learning to measure students' scientific literacy and creative thinking skills on work and energy materials. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(6), 4484–4494. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.2421
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
Schoen, J. L., Bowler, J. L., & Schilpzand, M. C. (2018). Conditional reasoning test for creative personality: rationale, theoretical development, and validation. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1651–1677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315618012
Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Chin, K. O. (2014). Developing a scientific creativity test for fifth graders. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 62.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., … Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
Sisman, H. E., Aydogan, N., & Cankaya, O. (2024). A scientific creativity scale development process for science teacher candidates. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 6(1), 37-63. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.587
Smith, G. J. W., & Carlsson, I. (1983). Creativity in early and middle school years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 6(2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548300600204
Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1974). Instructional development for training teachers of exceptional children: a sourcebook. Indiana: Indiana University Bloomington.
Torrance, E. P. (1966, July 9). Torrance tests of creative thinking. PsycTESTS Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t05532-000
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626801200401
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2024). A systematic literature review on authentic assessment in higher education: Best practices for the development of 21st century skills, and policy considerations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101425
Wahid, Z., Latiff, A. I., & Ahmad, K. (2017). Application of one-way ANOVA in completely randomized experiments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 949, 012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/949/1/012017
Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206
Wiyanto, S., S., & Hidayah, I. (2020). Scientific creativity: A literature review. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1567). Institute of Physics Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/2/022044
Wiyanto, W., & Hidayah, I. (2021). Review of a scientific creativity test of the three-dimensional model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1918 (2021)(052088).
Zalya, A. P., Zulirfan, A., & Feniwati. (2025). STEM at home improves students’ creative thinking skills on the topic of simple machines. Journal of Indonesian Science Teachers, 3(1), 1-10.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.