Psychometric Evaluation of a Creative Thinking Performance Test for Science Education

Psychometric Evaluation of a Creative Thinking Performance Test for Science Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Psychometric Evaluation of a Creative Thinking Performance Test for Science Education Molani Paulina Hasibuan, Widha Sunarno, Elfi Susanti Vh This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Creative thinking is a core competence in science education to address complex environmental, technological, and societal challenges. However, because students' performance is still insufficient, a valid and reliable evaluation instrument is needed to design effective learning strategies. The Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) instrument was developed through stages ranging from the preparation of a blueprint based on four dimensions of creative thinking (sensitivity, flexibility, novelty, and elaboration), construction of essay items, expert validation using the Delphi technique, pilot tests, and psychometric analysis using Rasch, EFA, and CFA to test validity and reliability. The study involved 138 elementary school teacher education students with diverse characteristics, so the results provide a basis for measuring performance-based creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The study results indicated variations in students' creative thinking skills based on demographic and academic factors. At the same time, EFA, CFA, and Rasch analysis confirmed that the instrument was valid, reliable, and effective in measuring the four dimensions of creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The study introduces the CTPT, valid, reliable, and relevant in measuring the four dimensions of creative thinking skills in science learning. It emphasizes the importance of performance assessment as a complement to the tests used by lecturers in assessing students' creative thinking skills. The CTPT provides lecturers and science educators with a performance-based instrument to assess and improve creative thinking in natural science learning contexts. creative thinking skills performance-based assessment science education Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Creative thinking skills are among the most important skills in education, especially in science learning. Creative thinking skills enable students to generate new ideas and encourage finding alternative solutions in dealing with complex scientific problems (Da'as, 2023; Han & Abdrahim, 2023). Various national and international curricula explicitly emphasize the importance of developing creative thinking skills so that students can adapt to the dynamics of scientific and technological developments (Chang et al., 2022; Dilekçi & Karatay, 2023; Shively et al., 2018). However, various studies suggest that students' performance in creative thinking still tends not to be optimal, especially when confronted with science contexts that demand divergent and convergent thinking simultaneously (Affandy et al., 2024; Bulut Ates & Aktamis, 2024; Hong & Song, 2020). The condition emphasizes the need for accurate, valid, and reliable evaluation instruments to measure students' creative thinking skills (Priyaadharshini & Vinayaga Sundaram, 2018; Ross et al., 2023; Shively et al., 2018). Appropriate evaluation is the basis for educators in designing effective learning strategies, so that creative thinking skills can truly develop according to the demands of the times. Consequently, creative thinking has long been the focus of studies by psychologists and educationists. Guilford (1950) defined creative thinking as generating various possible answers to a problem by emphasizing aspects of divergent thinking. Torrance et al. (1992) then developed the definition through the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which emphasizes four indicators: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Jia et al. (2017) emphasized that creative thinking is related to cognitive potential and an individual's real performance in solving problems. Therefore, the measurement of creative thinking performance requires a test instrument that is valid, reliable, and performance-based (Rhee et al., 2025; Shahbazloo & Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). Therefore, measuring creative thinking skills is not enough to assess students' declarative knowledge, but must reflect the ability to generate, develop, and apply ideas in real contexts (Oo et al., 2024; Pontis & Salerno, 2025). Numerous instruments have been developed to measure creative thinking skills, such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance et al., 1992), the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (Runco et al., 2001), and Guilford's Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, 1950). The instruments are widely used in psychology and education research, but they are mostly self-reported or generalized tests that assess creativity globally (Rhee et al., 2025; Shahbazloo & Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). The condition is not suitable for the context of the science curriculum, especially in Indonesian education, which demands assessment based on students' real performance in solving scientific problems. Moreover, existing instruments tend to emphasize general aspects of creativity, without linking them directly to creative thinking performance in the context of science learning (Runco et al., 2001; Shahbazloo & Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). Therefore, there are still limitations in obtaining measurements that are accurate, valid, and relevant to the needs of the science curriculum, so the development of test instruments that are more contextual and performance-based is needed. The limitations of previous research are even clearer when viewed from the two main types of assessments in measuring creative thinking skills: self-reported and performance assessments. Self-reported instruassessmentsrelatively easier to implement, but they often produce bias because students overestimate or underestimate their creative abilities (Tep et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2025). On the other hand, performance-based assessments are more accurate as they assess students' real ability to generate creative ideas or solutions (Lebuda et al., 2024; Patterson et al., 2024). However, developing and validating performance-based instruments is still rare, especially those that use modern psychometric approaches to ensure instrument validity and reliability (Patterson et al., 2025; Shahzad et al., 2025). As far as the researchers know, instruments that specifically evaluate students' creative thinking performance in science learning with strong psychometric validity and reliability tests are still very limited. Therefore, there is an important research gap to be filled by developing new instruments that are more contextualized and standardized. Responding to the gap, the current study contributes by developing and validating the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) as a performance task-based instrument specifically designed to evaluate students' creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. Contrasting with self-reported instruments, CTPT emphasizes assessing students' real performance in generating creative ideas. The validation process was conducted using modern psychometric standards, including the Rasch model's application and references to instrument evaluation standards issued by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), thus ensuring the reliability and validity of the instrument. The main contribution of the research is the provision of valid, reliable instruments in accordance with the needs of the science curriculum to measure creative thinking skills more accurately. The research implies the availability of evaluation equipment that lecturers and researchers can use to assess and design learning strategies that enhance students' creative thinking skills. Literature Review Creative Thinking and Creative Thinking Performance Creative thinking skills have been widely recognized as one of the essential 21st-century skills for individual success in facing global challenges, as emphasized by OECD, PISA, and Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Several experts provide definitions of creative thinking . For example, Guilford (1950) emphasized divergent thinking, Torrance et al. (1992) associated it with the ability to generate new and useful ideas, and Runco et al. (2001) emphasized the link between creativity and originality, and usefulness. Specifically, creative thinking skills can be identified through several aspects, namely fluency (fluency in generating ideas), flexibility (diversity of ways of thinking), originality (uniqueness of ideas), and elaboration (development of ideas in detail). Regarding education, it is important to distinguish between creative thinking potential and creative thinking performance, which is the real ability of students to express their creativity through concrete tasks (Morin et al., 2018; Oo et al., 2024; Siu & Wong, 2016). Therefore, to obtain a more accurate picture of creative thinking skills, a performance-based instrument is needed that assesses the real results of the creative thinking process, not just students' self-perceptions. Creative Thinking Assessment Instruments Several instruments have been developed to measure creative thinking skills, including the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance et al., 1992), the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (Runco et al., 2001), and Guilford's Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, 1950). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking is the most popular and widely used instrument internationally, but its implementation requires a relatively long time, high cost, and complex scoring process (Hu & Adey, 2002). Meanwhile, the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale and Guilford's Alternative Uses Task tend only to assess some aspects of creativity, such as fluency and originality , so they cannot provide a comprehensive picture of creative thinking skills (Tep et al., 2021). The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale and other instruments based on self-reported questionnaires are also limited because they only rely on individuals' subjective perceptions, which often do not reflect actual performance in completing tasks (Tep et al., 2021). Therefore, although various instruments are available, there are still fundamental limitations, especially in science learning and formal education, where not many performance-based and psychometrically validated instruments have been developed to assess creative thinking performance accurately. Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory in Creative Thinking Assessment Validation of creative thinking skills measurement instruments requires a strong methodological foundation so that the assessment results can be trusted. According to the Classical Test Theory (CTT) approach, validity and reliability are usually tested through internal consistency analysis, for example, with Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Love et al., 2019), as well as initial construct validity tests using exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (Hambleton et al., 1991; Rainey et al., 2022). However, CTT has limitations in providing detailed information at the item level (Baker & Kim, 2017; Lord, 1980). Therefore, the Item Response Theory (IRT) approach, specifically the Rasch model, is used to complete the analysis as it can evaluate item fit to the model (Andrich & Marais, 2019; Boone et al., 2014), detect item difficulty, and measure students' latent abilities more accurately (Baker & Kim, 2017; Lord, 1980). The combination of CTT and IRT or Rasch provides a methodological framework, so that the instruments developed are not only generally reliable and valid, but also have predictive power and can be used across student populations with a higher degree of fairness (Andrich & Marais, 2019; Boone et al., 2014). External Validity and Domain Knowledge in Creative Thinking Performance The measurement instrument for creative thinking skills must also be tested for external validity to ensure that the test results reflect students' real performance. According to Law et al. (2025) and Hargreaves (2005), external validity is important because it relates to the extent to which test scores can predict or relate to other relevant outcomes, such as academic achievement or learning outcomes. However, in the context of education, especially science, creativity cannot be separated from domain knowledge; for example, the ability to think creatively in science, math, or language is strongly influenced by the level of content mastery (Bond et al., 2020; Knowles, 2022; Siani & Yarden, 2022). Therefore, the instrument developed must distinguish between low creativity and low domain knowledge (Rubach & Lazarides, 2021; Sulistyanto et al., 2022). Thus, the validation process needs to consider the correlation between creative thinking performance with content mastery and other learning outcome indicators, so that the instrument can truly be used to assess creativity in the learning context without bias towards students' knowledge level. Research Aim and Research Questions According to the discussed background, the current research contributes by developing and validating a new instrument, the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT), which is designed to evaluate students' creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The instrument is used to measure four dimensions of creativity-fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration-which refer to Guilford's (1950) and Torrance et al.'s (1992) theories of creativity, while following modern psychometric measurement standards as advocated by AERA and APA. Furthermore, to strengthen its contribution, this study was formulated into three research questions: RQ1: To what extent does the CTPT demonstrate structural validity and reliability based on Rasch model analysis? RQ2: To what extent does the CTPT have external validity in predicting student performance on science problem-solving tasks? RQ3: What is the ability of students to generate adaptive and innovative scientific solutions, and what are the implications for their creative thinking skills?. Research Methodology General Background The Creative Thinking Skills Test (CTPT) instrument was developed by following standardized test development procedures as elaborated in the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The development process includes: (1) blueprint development based on the constructs of creative thinking skills relevant in science learning, (2) preparation of initial items according to the blueprint, and (3) assessment of face and content validity through expert review and initial trials. Item analysis was conducted using Rasch Measurement by considering the difficulty and distinguishing factor index. The structural validity and reliability of the CTPT (RQ1) were tested using the Rasch model to ensure item fit to the model as well as internal consistency of the instrument. The external validity of the CTPT (RQ2) was evaluated through analyzing the instrument's ability to predict students' creative thinking skills performance on an open-ended problem-solving task, compared to a self-report-based creative thinking assessment instrument. Participants The sample was selected using purposive sampling, a technique based on certain criteria relevant to the research objectives (Creswell, 2012). Purposive sampling was chosen because it allows researchers to obtain participants per the research context, such as academic background, university of origin, and semester level, so the data obtained can be more in-depth and representative according to research needs (Creswell, 2012). The study involved 138 students as participants. According to gender (Table 1), there were 14 male students (10.14%) and 124 female students (89.86%). Based on university affiliation, 63 students came from University A (45.65%) and 75 from University B (54.35%). Regarding the semester, 46 students were in semester 2 (33.33%), 47 students in semester 4 (34.06%), and 45 students in semester 6 (32.61%). The distribution of domicile location is almost balanced, with 65 students from urban areas (47.10%) and 73 students from rural areas (52.90%). Participation in campus organizations indicated that 60 students were actively involved (43.48%), while 78 students did not participate in organizations (56.52%). Based on academic achievement, most students have a GPA of 3.1-4.0 (101 students, 73.19%), while 37 students (26.81%) are in the GPA range of 2.1-3.0, and no one has a GPA below 2.0. Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents Category Sub category N % Gender Male 14 10,14% Female 124 89,86% University University A 63 45,65% University B 75 54,35% Semester 2nd Semester 46 33,33% 4th Semester 47 34,06% 6th Semester 45 32,61% Location Urban 65 47,10% Rural 73 52,90% Campus organization involvement Participating 60 43,48% Not Participating 78 56,52% GPA 1,0 - 2,0 0 0,00% 2,1 - 3,0 37 26,81% 3,1 - 4,0 101 73,19% Theoretical Construction The literature review identified four dimensions of creative thinking skills that are relevant to explore in the context of science learning (Torrance, 1966; Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024; Haim et al., 2024; Ernawati et al., 2023). The study refers to Torrance's classic framework to formulate an adequate construct, strengthening it with the results of recent research emphasizing the context of science education. The four dimensions (see Table 2) are positioned as the main factors, which are sensitivity , which refers to the ability of students to be sensitive in detecting problems and generating adaptive ideas; flexibility , which refers to the skill of generating varied ideas from various perspectives and categories; novelty , which emphasizes the ability to create unique and original ideas in offering new solutions; and elaboration , which describes the ability to expand and develop ideas into more detail and quality. The definition of the four dimensions becomes the basis for the operationalization of the instrument, where each dimension will be derived into indicators and items that represent students' creative thinking performance in science. Blueprint Construction The blueprint of the creative thinking skills instrument was developed based on four main dimensions determined through theory synthesis 1: 1) Sensitivity, 2) Flexibility, 3) Novelty, and 4) Elaboration. The research referred to a variety of sources to identify relevant concepts for each dimension, including classic literature on creativity studies (e.g., Torrance, 1966), recent academic publications in reputable journals (e.g., Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024; Haim et al., 2024), and research reports focusing on the context of science education (e.g., Ernawati et al., 2023). The decision to combine classic and contemporary sources was intended to ensure that the instrument's construction was grounded in basic theories of creativity and relevant to recent developments in science learning. The blueprint development process was carried out through three stages, which are: 1: first, researchers independently reviewed relevant documents and articles to record indicators of creative thinking skills in each dimension; second, the results of the review were compiled and grouped so that more concise and representative indicators were obtained; and third, the indicators that had been compiled were then validated by a panel of experts in the field of science education and instrument development to ensure the representativeness of the concept and suitability for the research context. Item Construction Constructing the items began by aligning each item with the concept of creative thinking skills formulated in the blueprint (see Table 2). The alignment was done to ensure coverage of the four dimensions: sensitivity, flexibility , novelty , and elaboration . Two items represented each dimension, so there were eight essay items. The essay format was chosen because it allows students to express ideas freely, display originality, and provide a more in-depth description of the cognitive processes underlying creative thinking skills in science (Kartini et al., 2021; Mafinejad et al., 2017). The design stage developed each item to encourage students to provide argumentative, detailed, and contextual answers according to the science problems presented. The initial draft of the items underwent several revisions to enhance clarity of wording, appropriateness of context, and level of cognitive demands. Two researchers independently reviewed each item to minimize ambiguity and ensure alignment with indicators in each dimension. Furthermore, an expert panel consisting of science education and educational assessment experts reviewed each item to provide input related to clarity, relevance, and conformity to theoretical constructs. Joint discussions were held until consensus was reached on the necessary modifications. Table 2. Theoretical Synthesis of Creative Thinking Skills Dimensions Dimensions Definition/description Sources Sensitivity Responsive in generating adaptive ideas to solve problems. Ernawati et al., (2023) Flexibility Generate ideas that vary from multiple perspectives and categories. Haim & Aschauer, (2024); Kholid et al., (2024); Nasution et al., (2023); Batlolona et al., (2019); Torrance et al., (1992) Novelty Devise unique ideas that provide new solutions to problems. Haim et al (2024); Kholid et al (2024); Nasution et al (2023); Batlolona et al (2019); Torrance et al., (1992) Elaboration Developing an idea to be more comprehensive, thus improving the quality of the idea. Haim et al (2024); Kholid et al (2024); Batlolona et al (2019); Torrance et al., (1992) Scoring The scoring guidelines in this instrument were developed based on a performance rubric approach that refers to Torrance's (1992) creativity theory as well as developments in current research in science education (e.g., Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024). The theory emphasizes that creative thinking skills are not only seen from the number of ideas, but also the quality of the ideas produced, including relevance, realism, uniqueness, and level of elaboration. Therefore, scoring was done in the range of 0-4, with the criteria: score 4 for ideas that are relevant, realistic, contextual, and expressed clearly and completely; score 3 for ideas that are adaptive, realistic, and contextual, but less clear or less complete; score 2 for ideas that are adaptive but less realistic; score 1 for ideas that are not adaptive to the problem; and score 0 if no ideas are given. Delphi Validation Validation of the instrument items in the current study was conducted using the Delphi technique, which is a method that involves a panel of experts to obtain a consensus of judgment through a systematic and structured process (Linstone et al., 2002). Delphi validation is needed to ensure that the instrument items are not only theoretically valid but also in accordance with the substantive context being measured, thus increasing the instrument's content validity (Aiken, 1985). The validation results suggested that all items obtained an Aiken index between 0.93-0.96 with a V table value 0.74. Because all index values exceeded the critical value, each item was declared substantially valid (Aiken, 1980). Therefore, the eight essay items developed have met the criteria of content suitability based on expert consensus and are suitable for the next stage of instrument testing. Pilot Test Conducting a pilot test is an important stage before the instrument is widely used, because it ensures that respondents can understand the items well, have clarity of wording, and can represent the abilities to be measured. Patel & Patel (2019) state that pilot testing helps researchers identify instrument weaknesses in terms of language, substance, and technicality, while Creswell (2012) emphasizes the role of pilot tests in providing an initial overview of instrument reliability and validity. The pilot test conducted on 35 students showed that all items could be answered well and did not cause significant confusion. However, some suggestions regarding the wording of certain items needed to be simplified to make them clearer. The results suggest that the instrument is generally feasible to use, but still requires minor revisions to the linguistic aspects to be more optimal in the main research. Data analysis Data analysis was conducted through several stages, starting with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to explore the factor structure, considering factor loading ≥ 0.40 as the minimum limit (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the model fit, with cut-off criteria such as CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90 (Kline, 2015), RMSEA ≤ 0.08, and χ²/df ≤ 3 (Lin & Tsau, 2013). Discriminant validity was tested using the Fornell-Larcker approach, where the AVE value must be greater than the squared correlation between constructs (Kline, 2015), while criterion validity was determined from the presence of significant correlations with relevant external measures (Shahzad et al., 2025). The Rasch Measurement Model was used to check item quality with the criteria of item fit on infit and outfit MNSQ 0.5-1.5 (Andrich & Marais, 2019), item and person reliability ≥ 0.70 (Cronbach, 1951), and person-item distribution analysis to see the balance of item difficulty levels with respondents' abilities. Research Results Descriptive Results According to the results of descriptive analysis, there are variations in creative thinking skills scores in the participant categories (see Table 3). Gender-wise, female students (N=124) exhibited higher scores than males (N=14), for example in sensitivity (M=64.97, SD=11.91 vs M=56.69, SD=15.12) and flexibility (M=67.78, SD=10.45 vs M=60.13, SD=8.73). By university, students from University A (N=63) scored higher on flexibility (M=65.16, SD=8.49) than University B (M=54.33, SD=13.10), while University B was superior on elaboration (M=65.82, SD=14.88). Based on semester, semester 2 students (N=46) stood out in sensitivity (M=71.55, SD=9.64) and novelty (M=61.99, SD=9.37), while semester 6 students (N=45) were relatively higher in flexibility (M=63.54, SD=12.07). Within the location category, urban students (N=65) scored better on almost all aspects, such as sensitivity (M=63.79, SD=10.48) and elaboration (M=59.93, SD=10.15), compared to rural students (M=62.04, SD=11.65; M=57.24, SD=9.44). Involvement in campus organizations also has an effect, where students who are active in organizations (N=60) are higher in flexibility (M=66.23, SD=10.12) than those who are not active (M=60.47, SD=11.28). Lastly, based on GPA, the 3.1-4.0 group (N=101) performed better on novelty (M=55.87, SD=10.53) and elaboration (M=59.84, SD=9.91) than the 2.1-3.0 GPA group (M=52.75, SD=9.80; M=57.36, SD=10.44). The findings suggest that demographic and academic factors have different roles in influencing variations in students' creative thinking skills. Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Results Category Sub category N Sensitivity Flexibility Novelty Elaboration M SD M SD M SD M SD Gender Male 14 56.69 15.12 60.13 8.73 48.85 10.64 54.80 9.10 Female 124 64.97 11.91 67.78 10.45 57.31 13.88 58.37 10.00 University University A 63 61.22 10.12 65.16 8.49 49.09 8.55 52.34 8.52 University B 75 62.67 11.82 54.33 13.10 51.55 8.50 65.82 14.88 Semester 2nd Semester 46 71.55 9.64 49.10 13.48 61.99 9.37 66.52 9.82 4th Semester 47 61.61 10.78 59.84 10.61 57.02 10.31 54.68 8.85 6th Semester 45 60.69 11.22 63.54 12.07 50.96 10.66 62.46 9.77 Location Urban 65 63.79 10.48 65.05 10.36 56.52 11.45 59.93 10.15 Rural 73 62.04 11.65 61.78 11.97 54.16 9.96 57.24 9.44 Campus organization involvement Participating 60 61.31 10.09 66.23 10.12 53.12 9.74 60.78 10.37 Not Participating 78 64.15 11.43 60.47 11.28 55.48 10.85 58.01 9.89 GPA 2,1 - 3,0 37 62.85 10.24 64.11 11.32 52.75 9.80 57.36 10.44 3,1 - 4,0 101 63.72 11.17 62.48 11.56 55.87 10.53 59.84 9.91 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results suggested that the instrument was worthy of further analysis and in accordance with the theoretical construction. The KMO value of 0.821 indicated an excellent level of sample feasibility (Kaiser, 1974), while Bartlett's Test of Sphericity yielded Chi-Square = 459.593, df = 28, and p = 0.000, indicating that the correlation matrix was significant and the data met the assumptions for factor analysis (see Table 4). According to the extraction results, four main factors with an eigenvalue of more than 1 cumulatively explained 82.24% of the total variance. The first factor explained 28.77%, the second factor 25.40%, the third factor 14.96%, and the fourth factor 13.11% of the overall variance after rotation. The component matrix shows that each instrument item has a loading factor above 0.70 on its respective factor, which indicates the consistency and representativeness of the item. Consistent with the theoretical framework, the first factor is interpreted as Sensitivity (Item_1 and Item_2), the second factor as Flexibility (Item_3 and Item_4), the third factor as Novelty (Item_5 and Item_6), and the fourth factor as Elaboration (Item_7 and Item_8). Consequently, the EFA results suggest that the empirical structure of the instrument supports the four dimensions of creative thinking skills that have been theoretically established. Hence, the instrument has good initial construct validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results (see Table 5) suggest that the four-dimensional model of creative thinking skills has an excellent fit with the data. The value of Chi-Square/df = 1.87 is below the threshold of < 3.0, which indicates a good fit (Byrne, 2016). Other indices also supported the model fit, including RMSEA = 0.056 (< 0.08), SRMR = 0.041 ( 0.90), TLI = 0.942 (> 0.90), NFI = 0.918 (> 0.90), GFI = 0.931 (> 0.90), and AGFI = 0.905 (> 0.90). Each index is within the recommended cut-off criteria, indicating that the four-dimensional construct model-Sensitivity, Flexibility, Novelty, and Elaboration-empirically supports the established theoretical structure. Therefore, the CFA results confirmed that the instrument has good construct validity and can be used to measure students' creative thinking skills performance reliably. Table 5. Model Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of CreativeThinking Skills Fit Index Value Cut-off Criteria Interpretation Chi-Square (χ²/df) 1.87 < 3.00 Good Fit RMSEA 0.056 < 0.08 Good Fit SRMR 0.041 0.90 Good Fit TLI 0.942 > 0.90 Good Fit NFI 0.918 > 0.90 Good Fit GFI 0.931 > 0.90 Good Fit AGFI 0.905 > 0.90 Good Fit Discriminant Validity The results of the discriminant validity analysis using the Fornell-Larcker criterion show that each dimension of creative thinking skills has good discrimination ability. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value in each dimension is 0.78 for Sensitivity, 0.81 for Flexibility, 0.76 for Novelty, and 0.79 for Elaboration (see Table 6). Some of the AVE values are greater than the squared correlation between factors, for example, the correlation between Sensitivity and Flexibility is 0.54, Sensitivity and Novelty is 0.49, and Sensitivity and Elaboration is 0.52. It indicates that each dimension explains more of its own item variance than the variance explained by other dimensions, so that each construct can be distinguished theoretically and empirically. Therefore, the instrument has sufficient discriminant validity, ensuring that the four dimensions are distinct yet conceptually related constructs. Table 6. Discriminant Validity Results on Instruments Factor Sensitivity Flexibility Novelty Elaboration Sensitivity 0.78 0.54 0.49 0.52 Flexibility 0.54 0.81 0.51 0.47 Novelty 0.49 0.51 0.76 0.55 Elaboration 0.52 0.47 0.55 0.79 Criterion Validity Criterion validity results suggest significant relationships between several demographic variables and the dimensions of students' creative thinking skills (see Table 7). Location variable had the most consistent and significant effect on all dimensions, with β = 0.28 (p = 0.004) on sensitivity, β = 0.25 (p = 0.007) on flexibility, β = 0.22 (p = 0.012) on novelty, and β = 0.24 (p = 0.008) on elaboration, indicating that students from urban areas tend to have higher creative thinking scores than students from rural areas. The semester variable also significantly affects all dimensions, for example, β = 0.21 (p = 0.022) on sensitivity and β = 0.20 (p = 0.029) on elaboration, indicating that increasing academic experience with each semester contributes to creative thinking ability. Moreover, GPA displayed significant effects on flexibility (β = 0.20, p = 0.034), novelty (β = 0.19, p = 0.039), and elaboration (β = 0.18, p = 0.041), indicating a positive relationship between academic achievement and the quality of ideas generated by students. The variables gender, university, and campus organisation participation display a more limited effect, with some p-values close to significant (e.g. gender on sensitivity β = 0.18, p = 0.041; university on flexibility β = 0.17, p = 0.038). Overall, the results confirm that the instrument can reflect differences in creative thinking ability related to students' demographic and academic characteristics, thus supporting the criterion validity of the instrument. Table 7. Criterion Validity Results on Instrument Demographic Sensitivity Flexibility Novelty Elaboration β p β p β p β p Gender 0.18 0.041 0.12 0.087 0.09 0.132 0.15 0.056 University 0.11 0.094 0.17 0.038 0.14 0.049 0.10 0.118 Semester 0.21 0.022 0.19 0.031 0.16 0.044 0.20 0.029 Location 0.28 0.004 0.25 0.007 0.22 0.012 0.24 0.008 Campus organization involvement 0.09 0.148 0.14 0.066 0.08 0.179 0.12 0.092 GPA 0.16 0.052 0.20 0.034 0.19 0.039 0.18 0.041 Model Fit Rasch Measurement results demonstrate that the creative thinking skills instrument has good measurement quality at the person and item levels. The mean score for the person was 20.2 with a standard deviation of 4.6, a score range of 6 to 30, and a mean measure of 0.98 with a standard error of 0.55 (see Figure 1). The MNSQ infit and MNSQ outfit values averaged 1.00 each, indicating a good fit of the data to the Rasch model. In contrast, the person reliability = 0.84 and separation = 2.27 values indicated the instrument's ability to differentiate the levels of students' creative thinking skills adequately. RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION reached 0.98, confirming the consistency of measurement. Among the items, the mean score was 352.4 with a standard deviation of 31.2, and the mean measure was 0.00 with a standard error of 0.13 (see Figure 2). The range of item sizes was between -0.90 to 0.70, and the MNSQ infit and outfit values averaged 1.00 each, indicating that all items fit the Rasch model. Item reliability = 0.94 and separation = 4.03 indicated that the instrument could distinguish the difficulty level of each item well. Overall, the Rasch results indicate that this eight-item essay instrument is internally valid, reliable, and has an adequate balance between item difficulty and student ability, making it feasible to measure creative thinking skills performance in the target population. Internal Consistency The results of the instrument's internal consistency indicate a good reliability level in measuring students' creative thinking skills. The correlation between the raw score and the measure reached 0.98, indicating a strong relationship between the students' scores and the measured construct. In addition, the Cronbach's Alpha (KR-20) value of 0.84 showed high internal reliability, indicating that the eight essay items have sufficient internal consistency and can be trusted to assess overall creative thinking performance. These results support using the instrument in the main study, as it provided stable and consistent measurements across participants. Item Characteristic Curves The analysis results of item 1.1SS (see Figure 3), which measures students' ability to formulate adaptive solutions based on local potential related to the electrical energy crisis in eastern Indonesia, show that scores are concentrated in the medium to high category. Seventy-one students (51%) scored 3 with an average ability of +1.15 logit, indicating their ability to generate adaptive and contextual ideas is quite good. Thirty-five students (25%) were at a score of 2 with an ability of +0.40 logits, indicating a basic understanding but still need to develop ideas to be more realistic. Twenty-two students (16%) achieved the maximum score of 4 with +3.29 logit, demonstrating full mastery in designing creative and contextual solutions according to local potential. However, only a small number of students, namely 6 people (4%) at score 1 with -1.44 logit ability and 4 people (3%) at score 0 with -1.55 logit ability, failed to show adequate understanding of the concept of alternative energy and utilisation of local resources. The Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) visually demonstrates that the expectation curve of the Rasch model (red line) is in line with the empirical data pattern (black-blue dots), with most of the dots falling within the 95% confidence interval. A good fit of the model is indicated, although there is a slight deviation in the low to medium ability range (around -2 to 0 logits). Therefore, item 1.1SS proved empirically valid, has sufficient discrimination power, and effectively assesses students' ability to design adaptive solutions based on science and local potential, distinguishing low, medium, and high ability students. Following the analysis of students' ability to formulate local potential-based adaptive solutions related to the energy crisis in item 1.1SS, the next step is to evaluate their ability to design more specific innovative solutions in the context of science and technology. Item 5.5NY emphasises the application of creative thinking skills to produce innovative ideas in the form of simple tools that can convert kitchen waste into energy, so that it can illustrate the extent to which students can integrate the concepts of science, creativity, and local contexts in a more practical and applicable manner. The analysis results of item 5.5NY (see Figure 4), which measures students' ability to design innovative ideas for simple tools to convert kitchen waste into energy, indicate that most students are in the middle ability category. A total of 45% of students obtained a score of 2 with an average ability of 0.93 logits, indicating an initial ability to generate adaptive ideas, but not fully realistic or detailed. Meanwhile, 34% of students obtained a score of 3 with an average ability of 1.50 logits, reflecting a more mature ability to develop contextualised innovative solutions to household organic waste problems. Only 7% of students achieved the maximum score of 4 with an ability of 4.75 logits, showing full mastery in designing creative, functional and science-based tools. Students with the lowest score of 0 were only 1%, indicating a small proportion who could not generate ideas related to renewable energy from waste. The pattern is in line with the Category Probability Curve (CPC), where category 2 has the highest probability at ability around 0-1 logits, category 3 is dominant at ability 1-3 logits, and category 4 only appears at ability above 3 logits, consistent with the low proportion of students who reach the maximum score. The Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) also indicates that students' expected scores follow the Rasch model well, although there is a slight deviation in the middle to high ability range (1-3 logits). Therefore, item 5.5NY can be valid and reliable, effective in assessing students' ability to integrate creativity, science, and local context to produce innovative energy-based solutions from household waste. However, its discrimination capacity at highly proficient (>4 logits) is still limited. Person-item Histograms The person-item map results demonstrate the distribution of respondents' ability and item difficulty on a single logit scale. The person part (above) shows that the majority of respondents are distributed around logit 0 to +2, with a peak frequency of about 20-22 respondents at logit 0 (green colour) and about 20 respondents at logit +2 (red colour). It indicates that most of the respondents have moderate to above-average ability. There are still some respondents with low ability, indicated by about 2-3 respondents at logits -3 to -4, but the number is relatively small compared to the moderate ability group. The items (below) are all clustered around logits 0 to +1, with no items that are either extremely difficult (logits > +2) or extremely easy (logits < -2) (see Figure 5). The items tended to be of medium difficulty, so they were reasonably well balanced with the average ability of the participants. Taken together, the distribution shows that the instrument is adequate in measuring the skills of respondents with moderate to high ability. However, it is less able to distinguish between respondents with very low or very high ability due to the limited variation in item difficulty. Measurement of Creative Thinking Subscale on the Topic of Renewable Energy Analysis of the creative thinking skills subscale on Renewable Energy indicated that the four dimensions of the instrument had varying measures with low standard errors, indicating stable and reliable estimates. The Sensitivity dimension has a measure of -0.515 with a standard error of 0.14, INFIT MNSQ of 0.875 (ZSTD -1) and OUTFIT MNSQ of 0.87 (ZSTD -1.1), and point-measure correlation of 0.695 (see Table 8), indicating that students are quite sensitive in identifying science problems related to renewable energy and can generate ideas that are adaptive and relevant to the local context. Flexibility dimension (measure -0.465; SE 0.135; INFIT MNSQ 1.23; OUTFIT MNSQ 1.25; point-measure correlation 0.615) signifies students' ability to generate diverse ideas from various perspectives, for example, considering various alternative energy sources or innovative ways to utilise waste into energy, thus demonstrating divergent thinking skills that are important in problem-based science learning. Table 8. Results of Measurement of Creative Thinking Subscale on the Topic of Renewable Energy Subscale Measure Standard Error INFIT OUTFIT Point Measure Correlation MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD Sensitivity -0,515 0,14 0,875 -1 0,87 -1,1 0,695 Flexibility -0,465 0,135 1,23 1,65 1,25 1,8 0,615 Novelty 0,42 0,13 0,86 -1,15 0,845 -1,3 0,72 Elaboration 0,56 0,13 1,03 0,25 1,035 0,3 0,67 The Novelty dimension (measure 0.42; SE 0.13; INFIT MNSQ 0.86; OUTFIT MNSQ 0.845; point-measure correlation 0.72) emphasises students' ability to create original and unique ideas, such as designing a simple device to convert kitchen waste into energy, reflecting scientific creativity in the context of science experiments. The Elaboration dimension (measure 0.56; SE 0.13; INFIT MNSQ 1.03; OUTFIT MNSQ 1.035; point-measure correlation 0.67) indicates students' ability to develop ideas in detail and systematically, for example, designing a complete renewable energy utilisation procedure, tool, or strategy, which is relevant to critical and analytical thinking competencies in science learning. Based on the overall validity and reliability of all subscales, with INFIT and OUTFIT MNSQ within the range of 0.5-1.5 and point-measure correlation >0.6, the instrument is effective in differentiating students' ability to think creatively and apply science concepts on the topic of renewable energy. Discussion According to international test development standards, measuring creative thinking skills validly and reliably is the main prerequisite for the instrument to be used in educational evaluation (AERA, APA, & NCME). The CTPT instrument was developed and tested through a modern approach (Rasch Model). The EFA and CFA results confirmed that the structure of the four dimensions-sensitivity , flexibility, novelty, and elaboration-wasadequate, with fit indices (χ²/df = 1.87, RMSEA = 0.056, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.942, GFI = 0.931) in the good fit category. Internal reliability values were also high (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.84), reinforced by Rasch reliability of 0.84 at the person level and 0.94 at the item level, indicating measurement consistency between items and the instrument's ability to distinguish student skill levels. Rasch analysis also displayed unidimensionality, model fit (MNSQ infit/outfit ≈ 1.00), and item separation = 4.03, which confirmed the instrument could classify item difficulty levels well (Andrich & Marais, 2019). Descriptive findings indicated that most students were still at a low to medium level in creative thinking, for example, the highest average score on the sensitivity aspect was owned by semester 2 students (M = 71.55). In contrast, the novelty aspect was relatively low in various groups (M ≈ 50-57). These results confirm that the CTPT can differentiate students with different skill levels while providing important diagnostic information for educators. Therefore, the instrument is valid and reliable and useful for identifying the need for creative learning interventions (Lin & Tsau, 2013). However, as per modern assessment principles, instrument development needs to be iterative and updated to remain relevant to the dynamics of science education. Beyond internal validity, an external validity test was also conducted to ascertain how much CTPT scores can predict students' real performance. The analysis was conducted on a science experiment-based problem-solving task on renewable energy. The regression results revealed that the CTPT score was a significant predictor of the quality of students' solutions in terms of sensitivity, flexibility, novelty, and elaboration. However, students with high scores on the Novelty dimension (measure = 0.42; SE = 0.13; INFIT MNSQ = 0.86; point-measure correlation = 0.72) tended to be able to produce original designs, such as a simple device to convert kitchen waste into energy, which was reflected in their actual performance during the experiment. The findings were further corroborated through structural equation modelling (SEM), which showed that CTPT made a significant contribution in explaining variations in problem-solving performance (β > 0.40, p < 0.01). Therefore, the CTPT proved more accurate in mapping students' creative thinking skills. The analysis continued by reviewing the pattern of variation in creative thinking skills scores based on gender, semester, GPA, university, location, and campus organisation participation. Female students excel in sensitivity (M=64.97) and flexibility (M=67.78) compared to males (M=56.69; M=60.13), which is in line with Runco et al.'s (2001) creativity theory that intrinsic motivation and different learning experiences affect sensitivity and flexibility of thinking. Regarding the semester, 2nd-semester students stood out in sensitivity (M=71.55) and novelty (M=61.99), indicating an explorative phase in the early stages of college. In contrast, 6th-semester students excelled in flexibility (M=63.54) due to more mature academic experience. In terms of university, University A students were more flexible (M=65.16), while University B excelled on elaboration (M=65.82), which may be influenced by different curriculum approaches or academic culture. Other findings show that urban students do better on almost all dimensions than rural students, and involvement in campus organisations is associated with higher flexibility scores (M=66.23 vs M=60.47). Meanwhile, GPA was associated with novelty and elaboration, with students with a GPA of 3.1-4.0 outperforming those with a GPA of 2.1-3.0. The pattern of variation enriches the empirical evidence on the contextual factors that influence creativity, although some findings differ from previous studies. The coherence of the CTPT instrument is also evident in the item analysis, for example, in items 1.1SS and 5.5NY, which represent real context-based problem-solving tasks. In item 1.1SS, which focuses on the electrical energy crisis in eastern Indonesia, the score distribution is concentrated in the medium-high category, reflecting students' ability to integrate science concepts with local potential. The reflects the aspects of sensitivity, flexibility, and elaboration simultaneously. In contrast, item 5.5NY, which requires an innovative design to convert kitchen waste into energy, emphasises the novelty aspect, so the score distribution is more spread out with a dominance in the medium category. The low proportion of students who achieved the maximum score indicates that the ability to produce innovative solutions is still limited. However, the understanding of basic concepts is quite good. The results of the study have implications for problem-based science learning and experimentation. First, instructors can design tasks with scaffolding so that students are sensitive to issues and encouraged to develop more original and applicable ideas. Second, the curriculum can integrate simple experimental projects that allow students to test ideas in prototypes, so creativity does not stop at the conceptual level. Third, the balance between mastery of domain knowledge and stimulation of creativity must be enforced, so instruments such as CTPT truly separate knowledge limitations from creativity limitations. Thus, CTPT functions not only as a valid and reliable measurement tool but also as a diagnostic instrument that can guide creative learning design in a more contextual, measurable, and targeted manner. Limitations and Future Directions The main limitation of the study rests on the scope and context of the instrument developed. The CTPT instrument has only been validated on elementary school teacher education program students, so the generalisation of the results is still limited to this group. The instrument has not been tested at other levels of education, such as secondary schools or non-primary teacher education higher education. It has not been used in international contexts with different learner characteristics and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, the items in the CTPT are still dominated by science-based contexts, so their applicability is relatively limited when used in other fields that require creativity, such as arts, technology or social sciences. To strengthen the external validity and ensure the instrument's flexibility, further research needs to be directed at expanding the trials across educational levels, scientific fields, and cultures so that the CTPT can become a more universal and adaptive instrument in measuring creative thinking skills. Besides limitations in scope and context, this study also has methodological and technical limitations. The psychometric analysis is still limited to using Rasch models and SEM, so it does not include other, more comprehensive analytical methods to enrich validity evidence. The instrument also needs to be updated regularly as theories and conceptual frameworks regarding creative thinking develop to remain relevant to research and educational practice needs. Future research directions include the integration of longitudinal tracking to monitor the development of creativity over time and the use of learning analytics to link test scores with students' actual performance in completing science-based and cross-cutting creative tasks. Conclusions and Implications The study introduces the CTPT, a performance-based instrument designed to assess creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The CTPT demonstrated strong structural validity and reliability, particularly in evaluating the core dimensions of creative thinking skills, such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration in learners of different ability levels. External validity analysis further confirmed the practical usefulness of the instrument, showing a significant relationship between CTPT scores and learners' performance in completing creative problem-solving tasks. The findings emphasise the importance of using performance-based assessments to complement traditional tests and self-report instruments to assess creative thinking skills accurately. Furthermore, the results also highlight the need for continuous development and adaptation of assessment instruments to remain relevant to educational practice and the development of creativity theories. Future research is recommended to expand the application of CTPT to various levels of education, across cultural contexts, and various fields of study, as well as to explore the use of digital technology to increase the efficiency and authenticity of the assessment. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declared no competing interests. Funding information This research is supported by Indonesian Education Scholarship, Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment, and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education. Ethics Statement The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Sebelas Maret (approval number: 6366/UN27.02/PT.00/2025) in accordance with the institutional ethical guidelines and national regulations for research involving human participants. Before data collection commenced, we provided an information sheet to the parents and legal guardians of the participating children and obtained their written informed consent. Permission from the educators was also obtained. Pseudonyms are used in this article to protect the anonymity and privacy of all participants. Consent to Publish Written informed consent to participate in this study and to publish the resulting data and findings was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all child participants. All participants were informed about the purpose, procedures, and use of the research data, and participation was entirely voluntary. Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Authors' contributions M.P.H. conceptualized the study, developed the research design, and constructed the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) instrument. She conducted data collection, performed statistical analyses (Rasch, EFA, and CFA), and prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. W.S supervised the overall research process, provided theoretical and methodological guidance, and ensured the alignment between creative thinking theory and the CTPT framework. She also contributed to the expert validation process using the Delphi technique and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. And E.S.V. contributed to the psychometric validation, data interpretation, and refinement of the results and discussion sections. She also provided feedback on the statistical analyses and helped improve the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the final manuscript. References Affandy, H., Sunarno, W., Suryana, R., & Harjana. (2024). Integrating creative pedagogy into problem-based learning: The effects on higher order thinking skills in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 53 , Article 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101575 Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 40 (4), 955–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419 Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analysing Reliability and Validity of rating. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 45 , 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092005 Andrich, D., & Marais, I. (2019). A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory: Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences . Springer Nature. Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2017). The basics of item response theory: Statistics for social and behavioral sciences . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54205-8 Batlolona, J. R., Diantoro, M., Wartono, & Latifah, E. (2019). Creative thinking skills students in physics on solid material elasticity. Journal of Turkish Science Education , 16 (1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10265a Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 Boone, W. J., Yale, M. S., & Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. In Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4 Bulut Ates, C., & Aktamis, H. (2024). Investigating the effects of creative educational modules blended with Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) techniques and Problem Based Learning (PBL) on students’ scientific creativity skills and perceptions in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 51 (February), 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101471 Chang, T. S., Wang, H. C., Haynes, A. M. D., Song, M. M., Lai, S. Y., & Hsieh, S. H. (2022). Enhancing student creativity through an interdisciplinary, project-oriented problem-based learning undergraduate curriculum. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 46 , 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101173 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson Education. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika , 16 (3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 Da’as, R. (2023). Teacher’s engagement in creativity: The role of school middle leaders’ values, team diversity and team knowledge self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 49 , 101346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101346 Dilekçi, A., & Karatay, H. (2023). The effects of the 21st century skills curriculum on the development of students’ creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 47 (December 2022), 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101229 Ernawati, M. D. W., Yusnidar, Haryanto, Rini, E. F. S., Aldila, F. T., Haryati, T., & Perdana, R. (2023). Do creative thinking skills in problem-based learning benefit from scaffolding? Journal of Turkish Science Education , 20 (3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.023 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist , 5 . Haim, K., & Aschauer, W. (2024). Innovative FOCUS: A Program to Foster Creativity and Innovation in the Context of Education for Sustainability. Sustainability , 16 (2257), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062257 Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review , 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamental of Item Response Theory . Sage Publication. Han, W., & Abdrahim, N. A. (2023). The role of teachers’ creativity in higher education: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 48 , Article 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101302 Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education , 35 (2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500146880 Hong, O., & Song, J. (2020). A componential model of Science Classroom Creativity (SCC) for understanding collective creativity in the science classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 37 , Article 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100698 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 Jia, X., Hu, W., Cai, F., Wang, H., Li, J., Runco, M. A., & Chen, Y. (2017). The influence of teaching methods on creative problem finding. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 24 , 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.006 Kartini, F. S., Widodo, A., Winarno, N., & Astuti, L. (2021). Promoting Student’s Problem-Solving Skills through STEM Project-Based Learning in Earth Layer and Disasters Topic. Journal of Science Learning , 4 (3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.27555 Kholid, M. N., Mahmudah, M. H., Ishartono, N., Putra, F. G., & Forthmann, B. (2024). Classification of students’ creative thinking for non-routine mathematical problems. Cogent Education , 11 (1), Article 2394738. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2394738 Knowles, M. S. (2022). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy . The Adult Education Company. Law, Y., Lai, S., & Liu, N. (2025). Leniency experiments: an evaluation of external validity. In European Journal of Law and Economics (Vol. 59, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-025-09835-1 Lebuda, I., Hofer, G., Rominger, C., & Benedek, M. (2024). No strong support for a Dunning–Kruger effect in creativity: analyses of self-assessment in absolute and relative terms. Scientific Reports , 14 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61042-1 Lin, H.-H., & Tsau, S.-Y. (2013). The Development of an Imaginative Thinking Scale. Imagination, Cognition and Personality , 32 (3), 207–238. https://doi.org/10.2190/ic.32.3.b Linstone, H. A., Turoff, M., & Helmer, O. (2002). The Delphi method: An efficient procedure to generate knowledge . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Love, S., Kannis-Dymand, L., & Lovell, G. P. (2019). Development and validation of the metacognitive processes during Performances Questionnaire. Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 41 (December 2018), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.004 Mafinejad, M. K., Arabshahi, S. K. S., Monajemi, A., Jalili, M., Soltani, A., & Rasouli, J. (2017). Use of Multi-Response format test in the assessment of medical students’ critical thinking ability. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research , 11 (9), LC10–LC13. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/24884.10607 Morin, S., Robert, J. M., & Gabora, L. (2018). How to train future engineers to be more creative? An educative experience. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 28 (September 2017), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.003 Nasution, N. E. A., Al Muhdhar, M. H. I., Sari, M. S., & Balqis. (2023). Relationship between Critical and Creative Thinking Skills and Learning Achievement in Biology with Reference to Educational Level and Gender. Journal of Turkish Science Education , 20 (1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.005 Oo, T. Z., Kadyirov, T., Kadyjrova, L., & Józsa, K. (2024). Design-based learning in higher education: Its effects on students’ motivation, creativity and design skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 53 , Article 101621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101621 Patel, M., & Patel, N. (2019). Exploring Research Methodology. International Journal of Research and Review , 6 (3), 48–55. Patterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Lloyd-Cox, J., & Beaty, R. E. (2024). AuDrA: An automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity. Behavior Research Methods , 56 (4), 3619–3636. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02258-3 Patterson, J. D., Pronchick, J., Panchanadikar, R., Fuge, M., van Hell, J. G., Miller, S. R., Johnson, D. R., & Beaty, R. E. (2025). CAP: The creativity assessment platform for online testing and automated scoring. Behavior Research Methods , 57 (264), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02761-9 Pontis, S., & Salerno, G. L. (2025). Understanding scientific creativity criteria: Biologists’ assessments of PhD students’ creative products using the CAT. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 57 , Article 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101861 Priyaadharshini, M., & Vinayaga Sundaram, B. (2018). Evaluation of higher-order thinking skills using learning style in an undergraduate engineering in flipped classroom. Computer Applications in Engineering Education , 26 (6), 2237–2254. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22035 Rainey, K. D., Vignal, M., & Wilcox, B. R. (2022). Validation of a coupled, multiple response assessment for upper-division thermal physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 18 (2), Article 20116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020116 Rex B. Kline. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (5th ed.). Guilford Press. http://www.amazon.es/Principles-Practice-Structural-Equation-Methodology/dp/1606238760/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369740057&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=Kline+RB.+Principles+and+practices+of+structural+equation+modelling.+En:+Kenny+DA,+editor.+Methodology+in+ Rhee, J. H., Park, S. Y., Han, G., Schermer, B., & Lee, K. H. (2025). Role of indoor environmental attributes on creativity: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 104 , Article 102622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102622 Ross, S. D., Lachmann, T., Jaarsveld, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., & Rodriguez, F. S. (2023). Creativity across the lifespan: changes with age and with dementia. BMC Geriatrics , 23 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-03825-1 Rubach, C., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Addressing 21st-century digital skills in schools – Development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior , 118 (December 2020), 106636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106636 Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). The Measurement and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal , 16 (3), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334 Shahbazloo, F., & Abdullah Mirzaie, R. (2023). Investigating the effect of 5E-based STEM education in solar energy context on creativity and academic achievement of female junior high school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 49 , Article 101336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101336 Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Zahid, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. Education and Information Technologies , 30 (3), 3691–3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9 Shively, K., Stith, K. M., & Rubenstein, L. D. V. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. Gifted Child Today , 41 (3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361 Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (2022). “I Think that Teachers Do Not Teach Evolution Because It Is Complicated”: Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Evolution in Israel. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 20 (3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10179-w Siu, K. W. M., & Wong, Y. L. (2016). Fostering creativity from an emotional perspective: Do teachers recognise and handle students’ emotions? International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 26 (1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9298-4 Sulistyanto, H., Anif, S., Narimo, S., Sutopo, A., Izzul Haq, M., & Abdul Nasir Zakaria, G. (2022). Education Application Testing Perspective to Empower Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills Related to The Concept of Adaptive Learning Media. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education , 4 (3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i3.19432 Tep, P., Maneewan, S., & Chuathong, S. (2021). Psychometric examination of Runco Ideational Behavior Scale: Thai adaptation. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica , 34 (4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00170-9 Torrance, E. P., Ball, O., & Safter, H. T. (1992). Torrance test of creative thinking streamlined scoring guide figural a and B. Bensenville . Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Xu, S., Reiss, M. J., & Lodge, W. (2025). Comprehensive Scientific Creativity Assessment (C-SCA): A new approach for measuring scientific creativity in secondary school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 23 (2), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10469-z Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8184708","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":566436540,"identity":"834b3642-1830-42ad-8a0e-2c71374feb67","order_by":0,"name":"Molani Paulina Hasibuan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jawa Tengah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Molani","middleName":"Paulina","lastName":"Hasibuan","suffix":""},{"id":566436542,"identity":"e9c46258-6f45-4b4e-9a96-9f14cf3534dc","order_by":1,"name":"Widha Sunarno","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jawa Tengah","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Widha","middleName":"","lastName":"Sunarno","suffix":""},{"id":566436551,"identity":"143e5586-2338-4f6c-b6f4-9a8dcc1b5f6a","order_by":2,"name":"Elfi Susanti Vh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jawa Tengah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elfi","middleName":"Susanti","lastName":"Vh","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-23 10:08:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99281990,"identity":"550eb30c-940c-4958-b22a-b315e7e2a4b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":211020,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"MolaniManuscript2025RevisedII.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/5e0c579fffd3cb44cee914ee.docx"},{"id":99281996,"identity":"b401cd42-ba06-484a-ac29-cdebe0180de1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d0a26024f4a47f1a9229344a702d909.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/3046a328e1b8060b98677ce3.json"},{"id":99319402,"identity":"f5989915-2f2e-4515-b325-06f1bbbac2f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:37:09","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":184516,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d0a26024f4a47f1a9229344a702d9091enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/45085a4b93c11fa03bd92875.xml"},{"id":99281997,"identity":"aeb9a3ab-35d1-408d-a7a9-cf85ddce4489","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":12826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/2c2e2e4a237a0ae4027ab2b2.png"},{"id":99281994,"identity":"caf4ab5a-fc51-44fa-ad6b-fcb59ffe2165","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16585,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/e5250808f75a76359253f4d7.png"},{"id":99319023,"identity":"679575ca-eb28-41e5-8c2e-adf14f791098","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:36:03","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/b0eb0be5a865b315bd6e00e8.png"},{"id":99282001,"identity":"a15eb2a3-2449-459a-93c5-db163340bfc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":602133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/7ab91a32af80528af41d086a.jpeg"},{"id":99321275,"identity":"c8179b45-3915-4549-9309-5a718086805b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:39:17","extension":"jpeg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":740574,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/2790ea7b8f792ec7311cc50e.jpeg"},{"id":99282000,"identity":"c9fcac49-3d96-42e2-ae71-c43666c6754d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/b0bbb37717bbc002a0c1a80b.png"},{"id":99320300,"identity":"71557ac7-0a47-41e6-bac3-6c3521d060d0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:28","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8255,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/07cd9f1a9ec7af1448213a2e.png"},{"id":99321225,"identity":"45e8df84-9c23-4413-bae9-57014061d1e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:39:17","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/03f5382230b7dc3ced236067.png"},{"id":99281999,"identity":"0bb017e1-dd21-42f3-953a-e81b8932268f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6517,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/297691402b74f44641203286.png"},{"id":99282005,"identity":"6d85ecd0-f63e-463f-a837-4629f85af87f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108297,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/5e7e54a334cbf50230aa12af.png"},{"id":99282002,"identity":"734bcb1d-7a27-4c29-8b1b-ed2007f84f12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":119224,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/8f75f30cd5ca13323c3e7142.png"},{"id":99320343,"identity":"5fcfacab-2a57-4a5f-ae29-ae54c2ec86af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:31","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5104,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/797d6a39cb4de99757fdc0aa.png"},{"id":99320714,"identity":"99c711ac-fdf2-4622-aa2b-10a6f205b78c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:52","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7d0a26024f4a47f1a9229344a702d9091structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/59bdfa9d62f405fec9f7c871.xml"},{"id":99320327,"identity":"384dbc12-ccb4-4c62-9f23-12a633334c3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:29","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":193143,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/652d8d26e9d7087442e02662.html"},{"id":99320731,"identity":"e7c44ab4-ee4c-4954-b827-106a74ef89ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:53","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16585,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePerson Fit Model Analysis Results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/b9ec892f9fd422e876fe07ee.png"},{"id":99281988,"identity":"981d625e-b293-478c-a7fc-713f022c3ef4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of Person Fit Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/9fd865ca39c20e9a1c0fbd87.png"},{"id":99281992,"identity":"eea63687-c57d-4d4d-b334-fcaadd78e79b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 08:42:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":602133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExample of Student Response Patterns on Item 1\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/f2a1b1a8f97166d881cb3123.jpeg"},{"id":99320360,"identity":"1cff6a23-bab3-4fa7-824a-7bff3e5bba31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:38:32","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":740574,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExample of Student Answer Response Patterns on Item 5\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/4bee5faa408da47a92cbecb6.jpeg"},{"id":99321206,"identity":"c9c0eb0b-f47e-4f10-91cf-c6301a833817","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:39:16","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9962,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePerson-item Histograms of Person and Item Results on the Test Instrument\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/6fa0c867be0ad039b58d5f0b.png"},{"id":102298119,"identity":"e0de7dc3-a1fe-49f2-bc7d-b2b64df6ffc5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 10:30:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2210382,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8184708/v1/58a79422-2f94-4fe5-89b1-61cc94b5ee32.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003ePsychometric Evaluation of a Creative Thinking Performance Test for Science Education\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCreative thinking skills are among the most important skills in education, especially in science learning. Creative thinking skills enable students to generate new ideas and encourage finding alternative solutions in dealing with complex scientific problems (Da\u0026apos;as, 2023; Han \u0026amp; Abdrahim, 2023). Various national and international curricula explicitly emphasize the importance of developing creative thinking skills so that students can adapt to the dynamics of scientific and technological developments (Chang et al., 2022; Dilek\u0026ccedil;i \u0026amp; Karatay, 2023; Shively et al., 2018). However, various studies suggest that students\u0026apos; performance in creative thinking still tends not to be optimal, especially when confronted with science contexts that demand divergent and convergent thinking simultaneously (Affandy et al., 2024; Bulut Ates \u0026amp; Aktamis, 2024; Hong \u0026amp; Song, 2020). The condition emphasizes the need for accurate, valid, and reliable evaluation instruments to measure students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills (Priyaadharshini \u0026amp; Vinayaga Sundaram, 2018; Ross et al., 2023; Shively et al., 2018). Appropriate evaluation is the basis for educators in designing effective learning strategies, so that creative thinking skills can truly develop according to the demands of the times.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, creative thinking has long been the focus of studies by psychologists and educationists. Guilford (1950) defined creative thinking as generating various possible answers to a problem by emphasizing aspects of divergent thinking. Torrance et al. (1992) then developed the definition through the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which emphasizes four indicators: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Jia et al. (2017) emphasized that creative thinking is related to cognitive potential and an individual\u0026apos;s real performance in solving problems. Therefore, the measurement of creative thinking performance requires a test instrument that is valid, reliable, and performance-based (Rhee et al., 2025; Shahbazloo \u0026amp; Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). Therefore, measuring creative thinking skills is not enough to assess students\u0026apos; declarative knowledge, but must reflect the ability to generate, develop, and apply ideas in real contexts (Oo et al., 2024; Pontis \u0026amp; Salerno, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous instruments have been developed to measure creative thinking skills, such as the \u003cem\u003eTorrance Test of Creative Thinking\u003c/em\u003e (Torrance et al., 1992), the \u003cem\u003eRunco Ideational Behavior Scale\u003c/em\u003e (Runco et al., 2001), and \u003cem\u003eGuilford\u0026apos;s Alternative Uses Task\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Guilford, 1950). The instruments are widely used in psychology and education research, but they are mostly \u003cem\u003eself-reported\u003c/em\u003e or generalized tests that assess creativity globally (Rhee et al., 2025; Shahbazloo \u0026amp; Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). The condition is not suitable for the context of the science curriculum, especially in Indonesian education, which demands assessment based on students\u0026apos; real performance in solving scientific problems. Moreover, existing instruments tend to emphasize general aspects of creativity, without linking them directly to creative thinking performance in the context of science learning (Runco et al., 2001; Shahbazloo \u0026amp; Abdullah Mirzaie, 2023). Therefore, there are still limitations in obtaining measurements that are accurate, valid, and relevant to the needs of the science curriculum, so the development of test instruments that are more contextual and performance-based is needed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe limitations of previous research are even clearer when viewed from the two main types of assessments in measuring creative thinking skills: self-reported and performance assessments. Self-reported instruassessmentsrelatively easier to implement, but they often produce bias because students overestimate or underestimate their creative abilities (Tep et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2025). On the other hand, performance-based assessments are more accurate as they assess students\u0026apos; real ability to generate creative ideas or solutions (Lebuda et al., 2024; Patterson et al., 2024). However, developing and validating performance-based instruments is still rare, especially those that use modern psychometric approaches to ensure instrument validity and reliability (Patterson et al., 2025; Shahzad et al., 2025). As far as the researchers know, instruments that specifically evaluate students\u0026apos; creative thinking performance in science learning with strong psychometric validity and reliability tests are still very limited. Therefore, there is an important research gap to be filled by developing new instruments that are more contextualized and standardized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResponding to the gap, the current study contributes by developing and validating the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) as a performance task-based instrument specifically designed to evaluate students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. Contrasting with self-reported instruments, CTPT emphasizes assessing students\u0026apos; real performance in generating creative ideas. The validation process was conducted using modern psychometric standards, including the Rasch model\u0026apos;s application and references to instrument evaluation standards issued by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Psychological Association (APA), thus ensuring the reliability and validity of the instrument. The main contribution of the research is the provision of valid, reliable instruments in accordance with the needs of the science curriculum to measure creative thinking skills more accurately. The research implies the availability of evaluation equipment that lecturers and researchers can use to assess and design learning strategies that enhance students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreative Thinking and Creative Thinking Performance \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCreative thinking skills have been widely recognized as one of the essential 21st-century skills for individual success in facing global challenges, as emphasized by OECD, PISA, and Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Several experts provide definitions of \u003cem\u003ecreative thinking\u003c/em\u003e. For example, Guilford (1950) emphasized divergent thinking, Torrance et al. (1992) associated it with the ability to generate new and useful ideas, and Runco et al. (2001) emphasized the link between creativity and originality, and usefulness. Specifically, creative thinking skills can be identified through several aspects, namely \u003cem\u003efluency (fluency\u003c/em\u003e in generating ideas), \u003cem\u003eflexibility\u003c/em\u003e (diversity of ways of thinking), \u003cem\u003eoriginality\u003c/em\u003e (uniqueness of ideas), and \u003cem\u003eelaboration\u003c/em\u003e (development of ideas in detail). Regarding education, it is important to distinguish between creative thinking potential and creative thinking performance, which is the real ability of students to express their creativity through concrete tasks (Morin et al., 2018; Oo et al., 2024; Siu \u0026amp; Wong, 2016). Therefore, to obtain a more accurate picture of creative thinking skills, a performance-based instrument is needed that assesses the real results of the creative thinking process, not just students\u0026apos; self-perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreative Thinking Assessment Instruments\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral instruments have been developed to measure creative thinking skills, including the \u003cem\u003eTorrance Test of Creative Thinking\u003c/em\u003e (Torrance et al., 1992), the \u003cem\u003eRunco Ideational Behavior Scale\u003c/em\u003e (Runco et al., 2001), and \u003cem\u003eGuilford\u0026apos;s Alternative Uses Task\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Guilford, 1950). The \u003cem\u003eTorrance Test of Creative Thinking\u003c/em\u003e is the most popular and widely used instrument internationally, but its implementation requires a relatively long time, high cost, and complex scoring process (Hu \u0026amp; Adey, 2002). Meanwhile, the \u003cem\u003eRunco Ideational Behavior Scale\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eGuilford\u0026apos;s Alternative Uses Task\u003c/em\u003e tend only to assess some aspects of creativity, such as \u003cem\u003efluency\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eoriginality\u003c/em\u003e, so they cannot provide a comprehensive picture of creative thinking skills (Tep et al., 2021). The \u003cem\u003eRunco Ideational Behavior Scale\u003c/em\u003e and other instruments based on \u003cem\u003eself-reported questionnaires\u003c/em\u003e are also limited because they only rely on individuals\u0026apos; subjective perceptions, which often do not reflect actual performance in completing tasks (Tep et al., 2021). Therefore, although various instruments are available, there are still fundamental limitations, especially in science learning and formal education, where not many \u003cem\u003eperformance-based\u003c/em\u003e and psychometrically validated instruments have been developed to assess creative thinking performance accurately.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClassical Test Theory and Item Response Theory in Creative Thinking Assessment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValidation of creative thinking skills measurement instruments requires a strong methodological foundation so that the assessment results can be trusted. According to the Classical Test Theory (CTT) approach, validity and reliability are usually tested through internal consistency analysis, for example, with Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient (Love et al., 2019), as well as initial construct validity tests using exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (Hambleton et al., 1991; Rainey et al., 2022). However, CTT has limitations in providing detailed information at the item level (Baker \u0026amp; Kim, 2017; Lord, 1980). Therefore, the Item Response Theory (IRT) approach, specifically the Rasch model, is used to complete the analysis as it can evaluate item fit to the model (Andrich \u0026amp; Marais, 2019; Boone et al., 2014), detect item difficulty, and measure students\u0026apos; latent abilities more accurately (Baker \u0026amp; Kim, 2017; Lord, 1980). The combination of CTT and IRT or Rasch provides a methodological framework, so that the instruments developed are not only generally reliable and valid, but also have predictive power and can be used across student populations with a higher degree of fairness (Andrich \u0026amp; Marais, 2019; Boone et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExternal Validity and Domain Knowledge in Creative Thinking Performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe measurement instrument for creative thinking skills must also be tested for external validity to ensure that the test results reflect students\u0026apos; real performance. According to Law et al. (2025) and Hargreaves (2005), external validity is important because it relates to the extent to which test scores can predict or relate to other relevant outcomes, such as academic achievement or learning outcomes. However, in the context of education, especially science, creativity cannot be separated from domain knowledge; for example, the ability to think creatively in science, math, or language is strongly influenced by the level of content mastery (Bond et al., 2020; Knowles, 2022; Siani \u0026amp; Yarden, 2022). Therefore, the instrument developed must distinguish between low creativity and low domain knowledge (Rubach \u0026amp; Lazarides, 2021; Sulistyanto et al., 2022). Thus, the validation process needs to consider the correlation between creative thinking performance with content mastery and other learning outcome indicators, so that the instrument can truly be used to assess creativity in the learning context without bias towards students\u0026apos; knowledge level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch Aim and Research Questions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the discussed background, the current research contributes by developing and validating a new instrument, the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT), which is designed to evaluate students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The instrument is used to measure four dimensions of creativity-fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration-which refer to Guilford\u0026apos;s (1950) and Torrance et al.\u0026apos;s (1992) theories of creativity, while following modern psychometric measurement standards as advocated by AERA and APA. Furthermore, to strengthen its contribution, this study was formulated into three research questions: RQ1: To what extent does the CTPT demonstrate structural validity and reliability based on Rasch model analysis? RQ2: To what extent does the CTPT have external validity in predicting student performance on science problem-solving tasks? RQ3: What is the ability of students to generate adaptive and innovative scientific solutions, and what are the implications for their creative thinking skills?.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Methodology ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeneral Background\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Creative Thinking Skills Test (CTPT) instrument was developed by following standardized test development procedures as elaborated in the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The development process includes: (1) blueprint development based on the constructs of creative thinking skills relevant in science learning, (2) preparation of initial items according to the blueprint, and (3) assessment of face and content validity through expert review and initial trials. Item analysis was conducted using Rasch Measurement by considering the difficulty and distinguishing factor index. The structural validity and reliability of the CTPT (RQ1) were tested using the Rasch model to ensure item fit to the model as well as internal consistency of the instrument. The external validity of the CTPT (RQ2) was evaluated through analyzing the instrument\u0026apos;s ability to predict students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills performance on an open-ended problem-solving task, compared to a self-report-based creative thinking assessment instrument.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample was selected using purposive sampling, a technique based on certain criteria relevant to the research objectives (Creswell, 2012). Purposive sampling was chosen because it allows researchers to obtain participants per the research context, such as academic background, university of origin, and semester level, so the data obtained can be more in-depth and representative according to research needs (Creswell, 2012). The study involved 138 students as participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to gender (Table 1), there were 14 male students (10.14%) and 124 female students (89.86%). Based on university affiliation, 63 students came from University A (45.65%) and 75 from University B (54.35%). Regarding the semester, 46 students were in semester 2 (33.33%), 47 students in semester 4 (34.06%), and 45 students in semester 6 (32.61%). The distribution of domicile location is almost balanced, with 65 students from urban areas (47.10%) and 73 students from rural areas (52.90%). Participation in campus organizations indicated that 60 students were actively involved (43.48%), while 78 students did not participate in organizations (56.52%). Based on academic achievement, most students have a GPA of 3.1-4.0 (101 students, 73.19%), while 37 students (26.81%) are in the GPA range of 2.1-3.0, and no one has a GPA below 2.0.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDemographic characteristics of respondents\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSub category\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10,14%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89,86%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45,65%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54,35%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemester\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2nd Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33,33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4th Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34,06%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6th Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32,61%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47,10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52,90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCampus organization involvement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43,48%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot Participating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56,52%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGPA \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,0 - 2,0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,1 - 3,0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26,81%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,1 - 4,0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73,19%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical Construction \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe literature review identified four dimensions of creative thinking skills that are relevant to explore in the context of science learning (Torrance, 1966; Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024; Haim et al., 2024; Ernawati et al., 2023). The study refers to Torrance\u0026apos;s classic framework to formulate an adequate construct, strengthening it with the results of recent research emphasizing the context of science education. The four dimensions (see Table 2) are positioned as the main factors, which are \u003cem\u003esensitivity\u003c/em\u003e, which refers to the ability of students to be sensitive in detecting problems and generating adaptive ideas; \u003cem\u003eflexibility\u003c/em\u003e, which refers to the skill of generating varied ideas from various perspectives and categories; \u003cem\u003enovelty\u003c/em\u003e, which emphasizes the ability to create unique and original ideas in offering new solutions; and \u003cem\u003eelaboration\u003c/em\u003e, which describes the ability to expand and develop ideas into more detail and quality. The definition of the four dimensions becomes the basis for the operationalization of the instrument, where each dimension will be derived into indicators and items that represent students\u0026apos; creative thinking performance in science.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlueprint Construction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe blueprint of the creative thinking skills instrument was developed based on four main dimensions determined through theory synthesis 1: 1) Sensitivity, 2) Flexibility, 3) Novelty, and 4) Elaboration. The research referred to a variety of sources to identify relevant concepts for each dimension, including classic literature on creativity studies (e.g., Torrance, 1966), recent academic publications in reputable journals (e.g., Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024; Haim et al., 2024), and research reports focusing on the context of science education (e.g., Ernawati et al., 2023). The decision to combine classic and contemporary sources was intended to ensure that the instrument\u0026apos;s construction was grounded in basic theories of creativity and relevant to recent developments in science learning. The blueprint development process was carried out through three stages, which are: 1: first, researchers independently reviewed relevant documents and articles to record indicators of creative thinking skills in each dimension; second, the results of the review were compiled and grouped so that more concise and representative indicators were obtained; and third, the indicators that had been compiled were then validated by a panel of experts in the field of science education and instrument development to ensure the representativeness of the concept and suitability for the research context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eItem Construction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstructing the items began by aligning each item with the concept of creative thinking skills formulated in the blueprint (see Table 2). The alignment was done to ensure coverage of the four dimensions: sensitivity, \u003cem\u003eflexibility\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003enovelty\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eelaboration\u003c/em\u003e. Two items represented each dimension, so there were eight essay items. The essay format was chosen because it allows students to express ideas freely, display originality, and provide a more in-depth description of the cognitive processes underlying creative thinking skills in science (Kartini et al., 2021; Mafinejad et al., 2017). The design stage developed each item to encourage students to provide argumentative, detailed, and contextual answers according to the science problems presented. The initial draft of the items underwent several revisions to enhance clarity of wording, appropriateness of context, and level of cognitive demands. Two researchers independently reviewed each item to minimize ambiguity and ensure alignment with indicators in each dimension. Furthermore, an expert panel consisting of science education and educational assessment experts reviewed each item to provide input related to clarity, relevance, and conformity to theoretical constructs. Joint discussions were held until consensus was reached on the necessary modifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTheoretical Synthesis of Creative Thinking Skills Dimensions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDimensions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefinition/description\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponsive in generating adaptive ideas to solve problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErnawati et al.,\u0026nbsp;(2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGenerate ideas that vary from multiple perspectives and categories.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHaim \u0026amp; Aschauer,\u0026nbsp;(2024); Kholid et al.,\u0026nbsp;(2024); Nasution et al.,\u0026nbsp;(2023); Batlolona et al.,\u0026nbsp;(2019); Torrance et al., (1992)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDevise unique ideas that provide new solutions to problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHaim et al (2024); Kholid et al (2024); Nasution et al (2023); Batlolona et al (2019); Torrance et al., (1992)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping an idea to be more comprehensive, thus improving the quality of the idea.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHaim et al (2024); Kholid et al (2024); Batlolona et al (2019); Torrance et al., (1992)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScoring \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe scoring guidelines in this instrument were developed based on a performance rubric approach that refers to Torrance\u0026apos;s (1992) creativity theory as well as developments in current research in science education (e.g., Batlolona et al., 2019; Nasution et al., 2023; Kholid et al., 2024). The theory emphasizes that creative thinking skills are not only seen from the number of ideas, but also the quality of the ideas produced, including relevance, realism, uniqueness, and level of elaboration. Therefore, scoring was done in the range of 0-4, with the criteria: score 4 for ideas that are relevant, realistic, contextual, and expressed clearly and completely; score 3 for ideas that are adaptive, realistic, and contextual, but less clear or less complete; score 2 for ideas that are adaptive but less realistic; score 1 for ideas that are not adaptive to the problem; and score 0 if no ideas are given.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDelphi Validation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValidation of the instrument items in the current study was conducted using the Delphi technique, which is a method that involves a panel of experts to obtain a consensus of judgment through a systematic and structured process (Linstone et al., 2002). Delphi validation is needed to ensure that the instrument items are not only theoretically valid but also in accordance with the substantive context being measured, thus increasing the instrument\u0026apos;s content validity (Aiken, 1985). The validation results suggested that all items obtained an Aiken index between 0.93-0.96 with a V table value 0.74. Because all index values exceeded the critical value, each item was declared substantially valid (Aiken, 1980). Therefore, the eight essay items developed have met the criteria of content suitability based on expert consensus and are suitable for the next stage of instrument testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePilot Test\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConducting a pilot test is an important stage before the instrument is widely used, because it ensures that respondents can understand the items well, have clarity of wording, and can represent the abilities to be measured. Patel \u0026amp; Patel (2019) state that pilot testing helps researchers identify instrument weaknesses in terms of language, substance, and technicality, while Creswell (2012) emphasizes the role of pilot tests in providing an initial overview of instrument reliability and validity. The pilot test conducted on 35 students showed that all items could be answered well and did not cause significant confusion. However, some suggestions regarding the wording of certain items needed to be simplified to make them clearer. The results suggest that the instrument is generally feasible to use, but still requires minor revisions to the linguistic aspects to be more optimal in the main research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis was conducted through several stages, starting with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to explore the factor structure, considering factor loading \u0026ge; 0.40 as the minimum limit (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the model fit, with cut-off criteria such as CFI and TLI \u0026ge; 0.90 (Kline, 2015), RMSEA \u0026le; 0.08, and \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df \u0026le; 3 (Lin \u0026amp; Tsau, 2013). Discriminant validity was tested using the Fornell-Larcker approach, where the AVE value must be greater than the squared correlation between constructs (Kline, 2015), while criterion validity was determined from the presence of significant correlations with relevant external measures (Shahzad et al., 2025). The Rasch Measurement Model was used to check item quality with the criteria of item fit on infit and outfit MNSQ 0.5-1.5 (Andrich \u0026amp; Marais, 2019), item and person reliability \u0026ge; 0.70 (Cronbach, 1951), and person-item distribution analysis to see the balance of item difficulty levels with respondents\u0026apos; abilities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Results ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Results \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of descriptive analysis, there are variations in creative thinking skills scores in the participant categories (see Table 3). Gender-wise, female students (N=124) exhibited higher scores than males (N=14), for example in sensitivity (M=64.97, SD=11.91 vs M=56.69, SD=15.12) and flexibility (M=67.78, SD=10.45 vs M=60.13, SD=8.73). By university, students from University A (N=63) scored higher on flexibility (M=65.16, SD=8.49) than University B (M=54.33, SD=13.10), while University B was superior on elaboration (M=65.82, SD=14.88). Based on semester, semester 2 students (N=46) stood out in sensitivity (M=71.55, SD=9.64) and novelty (M=61.99, SD=9.37), while semester 6 students (N=45) were relatively higher in flexibility (M=63.54, SD=12.07). Within the location category, urban students (N=65) scored better on almost all aspects, such as sensitivity (M=63.79, SD=10.48) and elaboration (M=59.93, SD=10.15), compared to rural students (M=62.04, SD=11.65; M=57.24, SD=9.44). Involvement in campus organizations also has an effect, where students who are active in organizations (N=60) are higher in flexibility (M=66.23, SD=10.12) than those who are not active (M=60.47, SD=11.28). Lastly, based on GPA, the 3.1-4.0 group (N=101) performed better on novelty (M=55.87, SD=10.53) and elaboration (M=59.84, SD=9.91) than the 2.1-3.0 GPA group (M=52.75, SD=9.80; M=57.36, SD=10.44). The findings suggest that demographic and academic factors have different roles in influencing variations in students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"635\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSub category\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2nd Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4th Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6th Semester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCampus organization involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot Participating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGPA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,1 - 3,0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,1 - 4,0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results suggested that the instrument was worthy of further analysis and in accordance with the theoretical construction. The KMO value of 0.821 indicated an excellent level of sample feasibility (Kaiser, 1974), while Bartlett\u0026apos;s Test of Sphericity yielded Chi-Square = 459.593, df = 28, and p = 0.000, indicating that the correlation matrix was significant and the data met the assumptions for factor analysis (see Table 4). According to the extraction results, four main factors with an eigenvalue of more than 1 cumulatively explained 82.24% of the total variance. The first factor explained 28.77%, the second factor 25.40%, the third factor 14.96%, and the fourth factor 13.11% of the overall variance after rotation. The component matrix shows that each instrument item has a loading factor above 0.70 on its respective factor, which indicates the consistency and representativeness of the item. Consistent with the theoretical framework, the first factor is interpreted as Sensitivity (Item_1 and Item_2), the second factor as Flexibility (Item_3 and Item_4), the third factor as Novelty (Item_5 and Item_6), and the fourth factor as Elaboration (Item_7 and Item_8). Consequently, the EFA results suggest that the empirical structure of the instrument supports the four dimensions of creative thinking skills that have been theoretically established. Hence, the instrument has good initial construct validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results (see Table 5) suggest that the four-dimensional model of creative thinking skills has an excellent fit with the data. The value of Chi-Square/df = 1.87 is below the threshold of \u0026lt; 3.0, which indicates a good fit (Byrne, 2016). Other indices also supported the model fit, including RMSEA = 0.056 (\u0026lt; 0.08), SRMR = 0.041 (\u0026lt; 0.08), CFI = 0.954 (\u0026gt; 0.90), TLI = 0.942 (\u0026gt; 0.90), NFI = 0.918 (\u0026gt; 0.90), GFI = 0.931 (\u0026gt; 0.90), and AGFI = 0.905 (\u0026gt; 0.90). Each index is within the recommended cut-off criteria, indicating that the four-dimensional construct model-Sensitivity, Flexibility, Novelty, and Elaboration-empirically supports the established theoretical structure. Therefore, the CFA results confirmed that the instrument has good construct validity and can be used to measure students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills performance reliably.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://myfiles.space/user_files/58895_8739fc6c57c1c19a/58895_custom_files/img1767170003.png\" width=\"747\" height=\"487\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eModel Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of CreativeThinking Skills\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFit Index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCut-off Criteria\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChi-Square (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.942\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.918\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.931\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAGFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 23px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood Fit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiscriminant Validity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the discriminant validity analysis using the Fornell-Larcker criterion show that each dimension of creative thinking skills has good discrimination ability. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value in each dimension is 0.78 for Sensitivity, 0.81 for Flexibility, 0.76 for Novelty, and 0.79 for Elaboration (see Table 6). Some of the AVE values are greater than the squared correlation between factors, for example, the correlation between Sensitivity and Flexibility is 0.54, Sensitivity and Novelty is 0.49, and Sensitivity and Elaboration is 0.52. It indicates that each dimension explains more of its own item variance than the variance explained by other dimensions, so that each construct can be distinguished theoretically and empirically. Therefore, the instrument has sufficient discriminant validity, ensuring that the four dimensions are distinct yet conceptually related constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDiscriminant Validity Results on Instruments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.78\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.81\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.76\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.79\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCriterion Validity \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCriterion validity results suggest significant relationships between several demographic variables and the dimensions of students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills (see Table 7). Location variable had the most consistent and significant effect on all dimensions, with \u0026beta; = 0.28 (p = 0.004) on sensitivity, \u0026beta; = 0.25 (p = 0.007) on flexibility, \u0026beta; = 0.22 (p = 0.012) on novelty, and \u0026beta; = 0.24 (p = 0.008) on elaboration, indicating that students from urban areas tend to have higher creative thinking scores than students from rural areas. The semester variable also significantly affects all dimensions, for example, \u0026beta; = 0.21 (p = 0.022) on sensitivity and \u0026beta; = 0.20 (p = 0.029) on elaboration, indicating that increasing academic experience with each semester contributes to creative thinking ability. Moreover, GPA displayed significant effects on flexibility (\u0026beta; = 0.20, p = 0.034), novelty (\u0026beta; = 0.19, p = 0.039), and elaboration (\u0026beta; = 0.18, p = 0.041), indicating a positive relationship between academic achievement and the quality of ideas generated by students. The variables gender, university, and campus organisation participation display a more limited effect, with some p-values close to significant (e.g. gender on sensitivity \u0026beta; = 0.18, p = 0.041; university on flexibility \u0026beta; = 0.17, p = 0.038). Overall, the results confirm that the instrument can reflect differences in creative thinking ability related to students\u0026apos; demographic and academic characteristics, thus supporting the criterion validity of the instrument.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCriterion Validity Results on Instrument\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCampus organization involvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGPA \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel Fit\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRasch Measurement results demonstrate that the creative thinking skills instrument has good measurement quality at the person and item levels. The mean score for the person was 20.2 with a standard deviation of 4.6, a score range of 6 to 30, and a mean measure of 0.98 with a standard error of 0.55 (see Figure 1). The MNSQ infit and MNSQ outfit values averaged 1.00 each, indicating a good fit of the data to the Rasch model. In contrast, the person reliability = 0.84 and separation = 2.27 values indicated the instrument\u0026apos;s ability to differentiate the levels of students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills adequately. RAW SCORE-TO-MEASURE CORRELATION reached 0.98, confirming the consistency of measurement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the items, the mean score was 352.4 with a standard deviation of 31.2, and the mean measure was 0.00 with a standard error of 0.13 (see Figure 2). The range of item sizes was between -0.90 to 0.70, and the MNSQ infit and outfit values averaged 1.00 each, indicating that all items fit the Rasch model. Item reliability = 0.94 and separation = 4.03 indicated that the instrument could distinguish the difficulty level of each item well. Overall, the Rasch results indicate that this eight-item essay instrument is internally valid, reliable, and has an adequate balance between item difficulty and student ability, making it feasible to measure creative thinking skills performance in the target population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternal Consistency\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the instrument\u0026apos;s internal consistency indicate a good reliability level in measuring students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills. The correlation between the raw score and the measure reached 0.98, indicating a strong relationship between the students\u0026apos; scores and the measured construct. In addition, the Cronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha (KR-20) value of 0.84 showed high internal reliability, indicating that the eight essay items have sufficient internal consistency and can be trusted to assess overall creative thinking performance. These results support using the instrument in the main study, as it provided stable and consistent measurements across participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eItem Characteristic Curves\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis results of item 1.1SS (see Figure 3), which measures students\u0026apos; ability to formulate adaptive solutions based on local potential related to the electrical energy crisis in eastern Indonesia, show that scores are concentrated in the medium to high category. Seventy-one students (51%) scored 3 with an average ability of +1.15 logit, indicating their ability to generate adaptive and contextual ideas is quite good. Thirty-five students (25%) were at a score of 2 with an ability of +0.40 logits, indicating a basic understanding but still need to develop ideas to be more realistic. Twenty-two students (16%) achieved the maximum score of 4 with +3.29 logit, demonstrating full mastery in designing creative and contextual solutions according to local potential. However, only a small number of students, namely 6 people (4%) at score 1 with -1.44 logit ability and 4 people (3%) at score 0 with -1.55 logit ability, failed to show adequate understanding of the concept of alternative energy and utilisation of local resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) visually demonstrates that the expectation curve of the Rasch model (red line) is in line with the empirical data pattern (black-blue dots), with most of the dots falling within the 95% confidence interval. A good fit of the model is indicated, although there is a slight deviation in the low to medium ability range (around -2 to 0 logits). Therefore, item 1.1SS proved empirically valid, has sufficient discrimination power, and effectively assesses students\u0026apos; ability to design adaptive solutions based on science and local potential, distinguishing low, medium, and high ability students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the analysis of students\u0026apos; ability to formulate local potential-based adaptive solutions related to the energy crisis in item 1.1SS, the next step is to evaluate their ability to design more specific innovative solutions in the context of science and technology. Item 5.5NY emphasises the application of creative thinking skills to produce innovative ideas in the form of simple tools that can convert kitchen waste into energy, so that it can illustrate the extent to which students can integrate the concepts of science, creativity, and local contexts in a more practical and applicable manner.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis results of item 5.5NY (see Figure 4), which measures students\u0026apos; ability to design innovative ideas for simple tools to convert kitchen waste into energy, indicate that most students are in the middle ability category. A total of 45% of students obtained a score of 2 with an average ability of 0.93 logits, indicating an initial ability to generate adaptive ideas, but not fully realistic or detailed. Meanwhile, 34% of students obtained a score of 3 with an average ability of 1.50 logits, reflecting a more mature ability to develop contextualised innovative solutions to household organic waste problems. Only 7% of students achieved the maximum score of 4 with an ability of 4.75 logits, showing full mastery in designing creative, functional and science-based tools. Students with the lowest score of 0 were only 1%, indicating a small proportion who could not generate ideas related to renewable energy from waste.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe pattern is in line with the Category Probability Curve (CPC), where category 2 has the highest probability at ability around 0-1 logits, category 3 is dominant at ability 1-3 logits, and category 4 only appears at ability above 3 logits, consistent with the low proportion of students who reach the maximum score. The Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) also indicates that students\u0026apos; expected scores follow the Rasch model well, although there is a slight deviation in the middle to high ability range (1-3 logits). Therefore, item 5.5NY can be valid and reliable, effective in assessing students\u0026apos; ability to integrate creativity, science, and local context to produce innovative energy-based solutions from household waste. However, its discrimination capacity at highly proficient (\u0026gt;4 logits) is still limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerson-item Histograms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe person-item map results demonstrate the distribution of respondents\u0026apos; ability and item difficulty on a single logit scale. The person part (above) shows that the majority of respondents are distributed around logit 0 to +2, with a peak frequency of about 20-22 respondents at logit 0 (green colour) and about 20 respondents at logit +2 (red colour). It indicates that most of the respondents have moderate to above-average ability. There are still some respondents with low ability, indicated by about 2-3 respondents at logits -3 to -4, but the number is relatively small compared to the moderate ability group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe items (below) are all clustered around logits 0 to +1, with no items that are either extremely difficult (logits \u0026gt; +2) or extremely easy (logits \u0026lt; -2) (see Figure 5). The items tended to be of medium difficulty, so they were reasonably well balanced with the average ability of the participants. Taken together, the distribution shows that the instrument is adequate in measuring the skills of respondents with moderate to high ability. However, it is less able to distinguish between respondents with very low or very high ability due to the limited variation in item difficulty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasurement of Creative Thinking Subscale on the Topic of Renewable Energy\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the creative thinking skills subscale on Renewable Energy indicated that the four dimensions of the instrument had varying measures with low standard errors, indicating stable and reliable estimates. The Sensitivity dimension has a measure of -0.515 with a standard error of 0.14, INFIT MNSQ of 0.875 (ZSTD -1) and OUTFIT MNSQ of 0.87 (ZSTD -1.1), and point-measure correlation of 0.695 (see Table 8), indicating that students are quite sensitive in identifying science problems related to renewable energy and can generate ideas that are adaptive and relevant to the local context. Flexibility dimension (measure -0.465; SE 0.135; INFIT MNSQ 1.23; OUTFIT MNSQ 1.25; point-measure correlation 0.615) signifies students\u0026apos; ability to generate diverse ideas from various perspectives, for example, considering various alternative energy sources or innovative ways to utilise waste into energy, thus demonstrating divergent thinking skills that are important in problem-based science learning. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eResults of Measurement of Creative Thinking Subscale on the Topic of Renewable Energy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubscale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eINFIT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOUTFIT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoint Measure Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMNSQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZSTD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMNSQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZSTD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSensitivity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0,515\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1,1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,695\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlexibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0,465\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,615\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNovelty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1,15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,845\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElaboration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 11px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 18px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0,67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Novelty dimension (measure 0.42; SE 0.13; INFIT MNSQ 0.86; OUTFIT MNSQ 0.845; point-measure correlation 0.72) emphasises students\u0026apos; ability to create original and unique ideas, such as designing a simple device to convert kitchen waste into energy, reflecting scientific creativity in the context of science experiments. The Elaboration dimension (measure 0.56; SE 0.13; INFIT MNSQ 1.03; OUTFIT MNSQ 1.035; point-measure correlation 0.67) indicates students\u0026apos; ability to develop ideas in detail and systematically, for example, designing a complete renewable energy utilisation procedure, tool, or strategy, which is relevant to critical and analytical thinking competencies in science learning. Based on the overall validity and reliability of all subscales, with INFIT and OUTFIT MNSQ within the range of 0.5-1.5 and point-measure correlation \u0026gt;0.6, the instrument is effective in differentiating students\u0026apos; ability to think creatively and apply science concepts on the topic of renewable energy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to international test development standards, measuring creative thinking skills validly and reliably is the main prerequisite for the instrument to be used in educational evaluation (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME). The CTPT instrument was developed and tested through a modern approach (Rasch Model). The EFA and CFA results confirmed that the structure of the four dimensions-sensitivity\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eflexibility, novelty, and elaboration-wasadequate, with fit indices (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df = 1.87, RMSEA = 0.056, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.942, GFI = 0.931) in the good fit category. Internal reliability values were also high (Cronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha = 0.84), reinforced by Rasch reliability of 0.84 at the person level and 0.94 at the item level, indicating measurement consistency between items and the instrument\u0026apos;s ability to distinguish student skill levels. Rasch analysis also displayed unidimensionality, model fit (MNSQ infit/outfit \u0026asymp; 1.00), and item separation = 4.03, which confirmed the instrument could classify item difficulty levels well (Andrich \u0026amp; Marais, 2019). Descriptive findings indicated that most students were still at a low to medium level in creative thinking, for example, the highest average score on the sensitivity aspect was owned by semester 2 students (M = 71.55). In contrast, the \u003cem\u003enovelty\u003c/em\u003e aspect was relatively low in various groups (M \u0026asymp; 50-57). These results confirm that the CTPT can differentiate students with different skill levels while providing important diagnostic information for educators. Therefore, the instrument is valid and reliable and useful for identifying the need for creative learning interventions (Lin \u0026amp; Tsau, 2013). However, as per modern assessment principles, instrument development needs to be iterative and updated to remain relevant to the dynamics of science education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond internal validity, an external validity test was also conducted to ascertain how much CTPT scores can predict students\u0026apos; real performance. The analysis was conducted on a science experiment-based problem-solving task on renewable energy. The regression results revealed that the CTPT score was a significant predictor of the quality of students\u0026apos; solutions in terms of sensitivity, flexibility, novelty, and elaboration. However, students with high scores on the Novelty dimension (measure = 0.42; SE = 0.13; INFIT MNSQ = 0.86; point-measure correlation = 0.72) tended to be able to produce original designs, such as a simple device to convert kitchen waste into energy, which was reflected in their actual performance during the experiment. The findings were further corroborated through structural equation modelling (SEM), which showed that CTPT made a significant contribution in explaining variations in problem-solving performance (\u0026beta; \u0026gt; 0.40, p \u0026lt; 0.01). Therefore, the CTPT proved more accurate in mapping students\u0026apos; creative thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis continued by reviewing the pattern of variation in creative thinking skills scores based on gender, semester, GPA, university, location, and campus organisation participation. Female students excel in sensitivity (M=64.97) and flexibility (M=67.78) compared to males (M=56.69; M=60.13), which is in line with Runco et al.\u0026apos;s (2001) creativity theory that intrinsic motivation and different learning experiences affect sensitivity and flexibility of thinking. Regarding the semester, 2nd-semester students stood out in sensitivity (M=71.55) and novelty (M=61.99), indicating an explorative phase in the early stages of college. In contrast, 6th-semester students excelled in flexibility (M=63.54) due to more mature academic experience. In terms of university, University A students were more flexible (M=65.16), while University B excelled on elaboration (M=65.82), which may be influenced by different curriculum approaches or academic culture. Other findings show that urban students do better on almost all dimensions than rural students, and involvement in campus organisations is associated with higher flexibility scores (M=66.23 vs M=60.47). Meanwhile, GPA was associated with novelty and elaboration, with students with a GPA of 3.1-4.0 outperforming those with a GPA of 2.1-3.0. The pattern of variation enriches the empirical evidence on the contextual factors that influence creativity, although some findings differ from previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coherence of the CTPT instrument is also evident in the item analysis, for example, in items 1.1SS and 5.5NY, which represent real context-based problem-solving tasks. In item 1.1SS, which focuses on the electrical energy crisis in eastern Indonesia, the score distribution is concentrated in the medium-high category, reflecting students\u0026apos; ability to integrate science concepts with local potential. The reflects the aspects of sensitivity, flexibility, and elaboration simultaneously. In contrast, item 5.5NY, which requires an innovative design to convert kitchen waste into energy, emphasises the novelty aspect, so the score distribution is more spread out with a dominance in the medium category. The low proportion of students who achieved the maximum score indicates that the ability to produce innovative solutions is still limited. However, the understanding of basic concepts is quite good.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the study have implications for problem-based science learning and experimentation. First, instructors can design tasks with scaffolding so that students are sensitive to issues and encouraged to develop more original and applicable ideas. Second, the curriculum can integrate simple experimental projects that allow students to test ideas in prototypes, so creativity does not stop at the conceptual level. Third, the balance between mastery of domain knowledge and stimulation of creativity must be enforced, so instruments such as CTPT truly separate knowledge limitations from creativity limitations. Thus, CTPT functions not only as a valid and reliable measurement tool but also as a diagnostic instrument that can guide creative learning design in a more contextual, measurable, and targeted manner.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main limitation of the study rests on the scope and context of the instrument developed. The CTPT instrument has only been validated on elementary school teacher education program students, so the generalisation of the results is still limited to this group. The instrument has not been tested at other levels of education, such as secondary schools or non-primary teacher education higher education. It has not been used in international contexts with different learner characteristics and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, the items in the CTPT are still dominated by science-based contexts, so their applicability is relatively limited when used in other fields that require creativity, such as arts, technology or social sciences. To strengthen the external validity and ensure the instrument\u0026apos;s flexibility, further research needs to be directed at expanding the trials across educational levels, scientific fields, and cultures so that the CTPT can become a more universal and adaptive instrument in measuring creative thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBesides limitations in scope and context, this study also has methodological and technical limitations. The psychometric analysis is still limited to using Rasch models and SEM, so it does not include other, more comprehensive analytical methods to enrich validity evidence. The instrument also needs to be updated regularly as theories and conceptual frameworks regarding creative thinking develop to remain relevant to research and educational practice needs. Future research directions include the integration of longitudinal tracking to monitor the development of creativity over time and the use of learning analytics to link test scores with students\u0026apos; actual performance in completing science-based and cross-cutting creative tasks.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions and Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study introduces the CTPT, a performance-based instrument designed to assess creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The CTPT demonstrated strong structural validity and reliability, particularly in evaluating the core dimensions of creative thinking skills, such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration in learners of different ability levels. External validity analysis further confirmed the practical usefulness of the instrument, showing a significant relationship between CTPT scores and learners\u0026apos; performance in completing creative problem-solving tasks. The findings emphasise the importance of using performance-based assessments to complement traditional tests and self-report instruments to assess creative thinking skills accurately. Furthermore, the results also highlight the need for continuous development and adaptation of assessment instruments to remain relevant to educational practice and the development of creativity theories. Future research is recommended to expand the application of CTPT to various levels of education, across cultural contexts, and various fields of study, as well as to explore the use of digital technology to increase the efficiency and authenticity of the assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declared no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research is supported by Indonesian Education Scholarship, Center for Higher Education Funding and Assessment, and Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Sebelas Maret (approval number: 6366/UN27.02/PT.00/2025) in accordance with the institutional ethical guidelines and national regulations for research involving human participants. Before data collection commenced, we provided an information sheet to the parents and legal guardians of the participating children and obtained their written informed consent. Permission from the educators was also obtained. Pseudonyms are used in this article to protect the anonymity and privacy of all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent to participate in this study and to publish the resulting data and findings was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all child participants. All participants were informed about the purpose, procedures, and use of the research data, and participation was entirely voluntary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM.P.H. conceptualized the study, developed the research design, and constructed the Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) instrument. She conducted data collection, performed statistical analyses (Rasch, EFA, and CFA), and prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. W.S supervised the overall research process, provided theoretical and methodological guidance, and ensured the alignment between creative thinking theory and the CTPT framework. She also contributed to the expert validation process using the Delphi technique and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. And E.S.V. contributed to the psychometric validation, data interpretation, and refinement of the results and discussion sections. She also provided feedback on the statistical analyses and helped improve the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAffandy, H., Sunarno, W., Suryana, R., \u0026amp; Harjana. (2024). Integrating creative pedagogy into problem-based learning: The effects on higher order thinking skills in science education. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101575\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 955\u0026ndash;959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analysing Reliability and Validity of rating. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 131\u0026ndash;142. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAndrich, D., \u0026amp; Marais, I. (2019). \u003cem\u003eA Course in Rasch Measurement Theory: Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Nature.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaker, F. B., \u0026amp; Kim, S.-H. (2017). \u003cem\u003eThe basics of item response theory: Statistics for social and behavioral sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54205-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBatlolona, J. R., Diantoro, M., Wartono, \u0026amp; Latifah, E. (2019). Creative thinking skills students in physics on solid material elasticity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Turkish Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 48\u0026ndash;61. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10265a\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., \u0026amp; Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoone, W. J., Yale, M. S., \u0026amp; Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. In \u003cem\u003eRasch Analysis in the Human Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBulut Ates, C., \u0026amp; Aktamis, H. (2024). Investigating the effects of creative educational modules blended with Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) techniques and Problem Based Learning (PBL) on students\u0026rsquo; scientific creativity skills and perceptions in science education. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(February), 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101471\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChang, T. S., Wang, H. C., Haynes, A. M. D., Song, M. M., Lai, S. Y., \u0026amp; Hsieh, S. H. (2022). Enhancing student creativity through an interdisciplinary, project-oriented problem-based learning undergraduate curriculum. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101173\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2012). \u003cem\u003eEducational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Pearson Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 297\u0026ndash;334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDa\u0026rsquo;as, R. (2023). Teacher\u0026rsquo;s engagement in creativity: The role of school middle leaders\u0026rsquo; values, team diversity and team knowledge self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 101346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101346\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDilek\u0026ccedil;i, A., \u0026amp; Karatay, H. (2023). The effects of the 21st century skills curriculum on the development of students\u0026rsquo; creative thinking skills. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(December 2022), 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101229\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErnawati, M. D. W., Yusnidar, Haryanto, Rini, E. F. S., Aldila, F. T., Haryati, T., \u0026amp; Perdana, R. (2023). Do creative thinking skills in problem-based learning benefit from scaffolding? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Turkish Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 399\u0026ndash;417. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.023\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaim, K., \u0026amp; Aschauer, W. (2024). Innovative FOCUS: A Program to Foster Creativity and Innovation in the Context of Education for Sustainability. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2257), 1\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062257\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Risher, J. J., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., \u0026amp; Rogers, H. J. (1991). \u003cem\u003eFundamental of Item Response Theory\u003c/em\u003e. Sage Publication.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHan, W., \u0026amp; Abdrahim, N. A. (2023). The role of teachers\u0026rsquo; creativity in higher education: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101302\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. \u003cem\u003eCambridge Journal of Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(2), 213\u0026ndash;224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500146880\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHong, O., \u0026amp; Song, J. (2020). A componential model of Science Classroom Creativity (SCC) for understanding collective creativity in the science classroom. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e, Article 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100698\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHu, W., \u0026amp; Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(4), 389\u0026ndash;403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJia, X., Hu, W., Cai, F., Wang, H., Li, J., Runco, M. A., \u0026amp; Chen, Y. (2017). The influence of teaching methods on creative problem finding. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 86\u0026ndash;94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKartini, F. S., Widodo, A., Winarno, N., \u0026amp; Astuti, L. (2021). Promoting Student\u0026rsquo;s Problem-Solving Skills through STEM Project-Based Learning in Earth Layer and Disasters Topic. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Science Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 257\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.27555\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKholid, M. N., Mahmudah, M. H., Ishartono, N., Putra, F. G., \u0026amp; Forthmann, B. (2024). Classification of students\u0026rsquo; creative thinking for non-routine mathematical problems. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 2394738. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2394738\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKnowles, M. S. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThe Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy\u003c/em\u003e. The Adult Education Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLaw, Y., Lai, S., \u0026amp; Liu, N. (2025). Leniency experiments: an evaluation of external validity. In \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Law and Economics\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 59, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-025-09835-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLebuda, I., Hofer, G., Rominger, C., \u0026amp; Benedek, M. (2024). No strong support for a Dunning\u0026ndash;Kruger effect in creativity: analyses of self-assessment in absolute and relative terms. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61042-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLin, H.-H., \u0026amp; Tsau, S.-Y. (2013). The Development of an Imaginative Thinking Scale. \u003cem\u003eImagination, Cognition and Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 207\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.2190/ic.32.3.b\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLinstone, H. A., Turoff, M., \u0026amp; Helmer, O. (2002). \u003cem\u003eThe Delphi method: An efficient procedure to generate knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLord, F. M. (1980). \u003cem\u003eApplications of item response theory to practical testing problems\u003c/em\u003e. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLove, S., Kannis-Dymand, L., \u0026amp; Lovell, G. P. (2019). Development and validation of the metacognitive processes during Performances Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sport and Exercise\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(December 2018), 91\u0026ndash;98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMafinejad, M. K., Arabshahi, S. K. S., Monajemi, A., Jalili, M., Soltani, A., \u0026amp; Rasouli, J. (2017). Use of Multi-Response format test in the assessment of medical students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking ability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(9), LC10\u0026ndash;LC13. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/24884.10607\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorin, S., Robert, J. M., \u0026amp; Gabora, L. (2018). How to train future engineers to be more creative? An educative experience. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(September 2017), 150\u0026ndash;166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.05.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNasution, N. E. A., Al Muhdhar, M. H. I., Sari, M. S., \u0026amp; Balqis. (2023). Relationship between Critical and Creative Thinking Skills and Learning Achievement in Biology with Reference to Educational Level and Gender. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Turkish Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 66\u0026ndash;83. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOo, T. Z., Kadyirov, T., Kadyjrova, L., \u0026amp; J\u0026oacute;zsa, K. (2024). Design-based learning in higher education: Its effects on students\u0026rsquo; motivation, creativity and design skills. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101621\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatel, M., \u0026amp; Patel, N. (2019). Exploring Research Methodology. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Research and Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 48\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Lloyd-Cox, J., \u0026amp; Beaty, R. E. (2024). AuDrA: An automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(4), 3619\u0026ndash;3636. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02258-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatterson, J. D., Pronchick, J., Panchanadikar, R., Fuge, M., van Hell, J. G., Miller, S. R., Johnson, D. R., \u0026amp; Beaty, R. E. (2025). CAP: The creativity assessment platform for online testing and automated scoring. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(264), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02761-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePontis, S., \u0026amp; Salerno, G. L. (2025). Understanding scientific creativity criteria: Biologists\u0026rsquo; assessments of PhD students\u0026rsquo; creative products using the CAT. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101861\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePriyaadharshini, M., \u0026amp; Vinayaga Sundaram, B. (2018). Evaluation of higher-order thinking skills using learning style in an undergraduate engineering in flipped classroom. \u003cem\u003eComputer Applications in Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2237\u0026ndash;2254. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22035\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRainey, K. D., Vignal, M., \u0026amp; Wilcox, B. R. (2022). Validation of a coupled, multiple response assessment for upper-division thermal physics. \u003cem\u003ePhysical Review Physics Education Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), Article 20116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020116\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRex B. Kline. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Methodology in the Social Sciences)\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Guilford Press. http://www.amazon.es/Principles-Practice-Structural-Equation-Methodology/dp/1606238760/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1369740057\u0026amp;sr=8-1-fkmr1\u0026amp;keywords=Kline+RB.+Principles+and+practices+of+structural+equation+modelling.+En:+Kenny+DA,+editor.+Methodology+in+\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRhee, J. H., Park, S. Y., Han, G., Schermer, B., \u0026amp; Lee, K. H. (2025). Role of indoor environmental attributes on creativity: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e, Article 102622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102622\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoss, S. D., Lachmann, T., Jaarsveld, S., Riedel-Heller, S. G., \u0026amp; Rodriguez, F. S. (2023). Creativity across the lifespan: changes with age and with dementia. \u003cem\u003eBMC Geriatrics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-03825-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRubach, C., \u0026amp; Lazarides, R. (2021). Addressing 21st-century digital skills in schools \u0026ndash; Development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers\u0026rsquo; basic ICT competence beliefs. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e(December 2020), 106636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106636\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRunco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., \u0026amp; Lim, W. (2001). The Measurement and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. \u003cem\u003eCreativity Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 393\u0026ndash;400. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShahbazloo, F., \u0026amp; Abdullah Mirzaie, R. (2023). Investigating the effect of 5E-based STEM education in solar energy context on creativity and academic achievement of female junior high school students. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101336\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShahzad, M. F., Xu, S., \u0026amp; Zahid, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness \u0026amp; ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3), 3691\u0026ndash;3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShively, K., Stith, K. M., \u0026amp; Rubenstein, L. D. V. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. \u003cem\u003eGifted Child Today\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(3), 149\u0026ndash;158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSiani, M., \u0026amp; Yarden, A. (2022). \u0026ldquo;I Think that Teachers Do Not Teach Evolution Because It Is Complicated\u0026rdquo;: Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Evolution in Israel. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 481\u0026ndash;501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10179-w\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSiu, K. W. M., \u0026amp; Wong, Y. L. (2016). Fostering creativity from an emotional perspective: Do teachers recognise and handle students\u0026rsquo; emotions? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 105\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9298-4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSulistyanto, H., Anif, S., Narimo, S., Sutopo, A., Izzul Haq, M., \u0026amp; Abdul Nasir Zakaria, G. (2022). Education Application Testing Perspective to Empower Students\u0026rsquo; Higher Order Thinking Skills Related to The Concept of Adaptive Learning Media. \u003cem\u003eIndonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 257\u0026ndash;271. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i3.19432\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTep, P., Maneewan, S., \u0026amp; Chuathong, S. (2021). Psychometric examination of Runco Ideational Behavior Scale: Thai adaptation. \u003cem\u003ePsicologia: Reflexao e Critica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00170-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorrance, E. P., Ball, O., \u0026amp; Safter, H. T. (1992). \u003cem\u003eTorrance test of creative thinking streamlined scoring guide figural a and B. Bensenville\u003c/em\u003e. Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, S., Reiss, M. J., \u0026amp; Lodge, W. (2025). Comprehensive Scientific Creativity Assessment (C-SCA): A new approach for measuring scientific creativity in secondary school students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 293\u0026ndash;319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10469-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"creative thinking skills, performance-based assessment, science education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreative thinking is a core competence in science education to address complex environmental, technological, and societal challenges. However, because students' performance is still insufficient, a valid and reliable evaluation instrument is needed to design effective learning strategies. The Creative Thinking Performance Test (CTPT) instrument was developed through stages ranging from the preparation of a blueprint based on four dimensions of creative thinking (sensitivity, flexibility, novelty, and elaboration), construction of essay items, expert validation using the Delphi technique, pilot tests, and psychometric analysis using Rasch, EFA, and CFA to test validity and reliability. The study involved 138 elementary school teacher education students with diverse characteristics, so the results provide a basis for measuring performance-based creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The study results indicated variations in students' creative thinking skills based on demographic and academic factors. At the same time, EFA, CFA, and Rasch analysis confirmed that the instrument was valid, reliable, and effective in measuring the four dimensions of creative thinking skills in the context of science learning. The study introduces the CTPT, valid, reliable, and relevant in measuring the four dimensions of creative thinking skills in science learning. It emphasizes the importance of performance assessment as a complement to the tests used by lecturers in assessing students' creative thinking skills. The CTPT provides lecturers and science educators with a performance-based instrument to assess and improve creative thinking in natural science learning contexts.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Psychometric Evaluation of a Creative Thinking Performance Test for Science Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-31 08:42:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8184708/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d35c4e63-9038-4fc7-b0b4-b8d61e0e1576","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-10T09:12:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-31 08:42:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8184708","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8184708","identity":"rs-8184708","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}