# OToPS/Measures/Creative Achievement Questionnaire

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

## Before starting

If you are starting a Wikiversity instrument page using this template, please do the following:
* We will import all of the content here to a new page.
** Click on the Edit source tab. Copy all content.
** Create a new page.
** Paste it in!
** Delete these instructions.

## Lead section

The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) was created by Shelley H. Carson from Harvard University in 2005 and based the CAQ upon public acclaim ranked by field “experts.” The CAQ can be used to test both individual differences and group differences in creative achievement. It is an objective self-report measure of creative achievement across 10 domains. These 10 domains are: Visual Arts, Music, Dance, Architectural Design, Creative Writing, Scientific Discovery, Humor, Theater and Film, Inventions and Culinary Arts. Each of the 10 domains has 8 questions from 0-7 under it. The CAQ provides individual domain scores and the total CAQ score which is all 10 domain scores summed up. Besides these 10 domains there is 3 additional domains that are not covered in as much detail: individual sports, team sports, and entrepreneurial ventures. All 96 items on the CAQ either ask you to provide a checkmark beside it if applies to you or a number which represents how many times you accomplished that item. The CAQ has no multiple choice on it. The CAQ measures Big-C creativity, which is rare, genius overall creative ability marked by significant and observable accomplishments. Big-C creativity is considered rare, that is why Carson explains that the CAQ total scores are meant to be highly positively skewed. This is supposed to be an accurate representation of the general population, with majority of people scoring low and only individuals with significant achievements in at least one domain receiving high scores. The CAQ uses an innovative and complex scoring approach unlike a simple Likert Scale. The way the CAQ items in each domain is set up makes it so the scores range from zero and beyond with no max score due to multiplying items on the CAQ. These multiplying items are usually items 6. or 7. and multiplies the item's score by however many times that individual accomplished that item. The CAQ is extensively used and so some researchers employ the log function on the total CAQ scores to make analyses of the CAQ easier and to create a more normal distribution of scores.
Carson suggested that the CAQ has 3 underlying factors, expressive, scientific inquiry, and performance. These factors were created by grouping related domains together then a factorial analysis was performed. The common use of just the overall score in research studies suggests just a single underlying factor. More research needs to be done to see how many factors this construct actually tests for. Another limitation that raises some concern is the CAQ's ability to accurately test all age ranges in a population. Some research suggests that CAQ scores underestimate creative accomplishments that are typical of college students since they have not reached the stage in life where high scoring items would usually be accomplished. One piece of evidence that supports that it accurately measures creative achievement is that a common predictor of CAQ scores is openness to experience, a personality trait from the Big Five Inventory. Openness to experience has been found to be strongly correlated with other creative measurement scores as well. It can be used in many settings and clinicians and researchers use it. It can be sent out through a survey as well.

## Psychometrics
### Instrument rubric table: Reliability

Note: Not all of the different types of reliability apply to the way that questionnaires are typically used. Internal consistency (whether all of the items measure the same construct) is not usually reported in studies of questionnaires; nor is inter-rater reliability (which would measure how similar peoples' responses were if the interviews were repeated again, or different raters listened to the same interview). Therefore, make adjustments as needed.
Click here for instrument reliability table :
Reliability
Not all of the different types of reliability apply to the way that questionnaires are typically used. Internal consistency (whether all of the items measure the same construct) is not usually reported in studies of questionnaires; nor is inter-rater reliability (which would measure how similar peoples' responses were if the interviews were repeated again, or different raters listened to the same interview). Therefore, make adjustments as needed.
Reliability refers to whether the scores are reproducible. Unless otherwise specified, the reliability scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is the rubric for evaluating the reliability of scores on a measure for the purpose of evidence based assessment.
Evaluation for norms and reliability for the XXX (table from Youngstrom et al., extending Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)
CriterionRating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)Explanation with references
NormsAdequateMultiple convenience samples and research studies, including both clinical and nonclinical samples[citation needed]
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, split half, etc.)Excellent; too good for some contextsAlphas routinely over .94 for both scales, suggesting that scales could be shortened for many uses[citation needed]
Interrater reliabilityNot applicableDesigned originally as a self-report scale; parent and youth report correlate about the same as cross-informant scores correlate in general
Test-retest reliability (stabilityGoodr = .73 over 15 weeks. Evaluated in initial studies, with data also show high stability in clinical trials[citation needed]
RepeatabilityNot publishedNo published studies formally checking repeatability :

### Instrument rubric table: Validity

Click here for instrument validity table :
Validity
Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures, diagnostic accuracy and w:discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity. Unless otherwise specified, the validity scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is a rubric for describing validity of test scores in the context of evidence-based assessment.
Evaluation of validity and utility for the XXX (table from Youngstrom et al., unpublished, extended from Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category)
CriterionRating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*)Explanation with references
Content validityExcellentCovers both DSM diagnostic symptoms and a range of associated features
Contruct validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity)ExcellentShows Convergent validity with other symptom scales, longitudinal prediction of development of mood disorders, criterion validity via metabolic markers and associations with family history of mood disorder. Factor structure complicated; the inclusion of “biphasic” or “mixed” mood items creates a lot of cross-loading
Discriminative validityExcellentMultiple studies show that GBI scores discriminate cases with unipolar and bipolar mood disorders from other clinical disorders effect sizes are among the largest of existing scales
Validity generalizationGoodUsed both as self-report and caregiver report; used in college student as well as outpatient and inpatient clinical samples; translated into multiple languages with good reliability
Treatment sensitivityGoodMultiple studies show sensitivity to treatment effects comparable to using interviews by trained raters, including placebo-controlled, masked assignment trials Short forms appear to retain sensitivity to treatment effects while substantially reducing burden
Clinical utilityGoodFree (public domain), strong psychometrics, extensive research base. Biggest concerns are length and reading level. Short forms have less research, but are appealing based on reduced burden and promising data :

## Impact

* What was the impact of this assessment? How did it affect assessment in psychiatry, psychology and health care professionals?
* What can the assessment be used for in clinical settings? Can it be used to measure symptoms longitudinally? Developmentally?

## Use in other populations

Besides the English original, the CAQ was also used in a Chinese, French, and German version.

## Scoring instructions and syntax

We have syntax in three major languages: R, SPSS, and SAS. All variable names are the same across all three, and all match the CSV shell that we provide as well as the Qualtrics export.