Three faces of intellect.

Guilford, J. P.

doi:10.1037/h0046827

Cited by 738 publications

(290 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Its reach is so wide and its implementation so broad that a complete definition is elusive within the research. Guilford (1967aGuilford ( , 1967bGuilford ( , 1959 provided one of the first definitions for research as part of his Structure-of-Intellect model, defining creativity in a similar way to other types of human thought. His is one of the first definitions; Starko (2014) and others point to a plethora of creativity research suggesting many different definitions of creativity across the psychology disciplines (Parkhurst, 1999;Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010).…”

Section: What Is Creativity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of the State of Creativity and Critical Thinking in Engineering Undergraduates

Sola¹,

Hoekstra²,

Fiore³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of an undergraduate engineering education is to provide students with the necessary knowledge and skills needed to solve real world problems. Creativity and critical thinking are two abilities essential for success in the workplace, and are highly sought after by employers. However, there is evidence of decreasing creativity and critical thinking in senior engineering students. This study sought to understand if freshman engineering students are measurably more creative, but less capable of critical thinking, than senior undergraduate engineering students. Creativity and critical thinking were measured using the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), respectively. The data suggest that freshman engineering students were significantly more creative than senior engineering students. However, senior engineering students were found to be no better at critical thinking than their freshman counterparts. When compared to normative data, the senior engineering students underperformed significantly compared to the general population of senior college students. With study limitations in mind, these findings may suggest that senior engineering students are not only less creative, but also less capable of critical thinking, than when they started their engineering program. If this is indeed the appropriate conclusion, then there is a need to understand the underlying issues driving the decline of creativity and critical thinking in engineering undergraduate students.

show abstract

Section: What Is Creativity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of the State of Creativity and Critical Thinking in Engineering Undergraduates

Sola¹,

Hoekstra²,

Fiore³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this perspective, it may be most profitable to view everyday cognition as a more multidimensional construct than the use of global construct labels such as practical problem solving suggests. A multidimensional view of cognitive abilities has a long tradition in psychometric conceptions of intelligence (e.g., Cattell, 1971;Guilford, 1959;Thurstone, 1962) and is a key proposition of life span developmental psychology (P. B. Baltes, 1987; P. B.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensionality of everyday problem solving in older adults.

Marsiske¹,

Willis²

1995

Psychology and Aging

110

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated individual differences in older adults' everyday problem-solving performance using 3 instruments. Past research, typically using only single measures, has yielded a multitude of findings regarding age effects in everyday problem solving. The present sample consisted of 111 older adults (44 men, 67 women) who ranged in age from 68 to 94 years. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that, within each of the 3 instruments, subscales representing particular content domains could be reliably identified. There was, however, little relation between the different instruments, and the measures also differed in their relation with chronological age. These results support the view that everyday problem-solving competence is a multidimensional construct, of which previous investigations may only have studied particular dimensions.The goal of this study was to investigate how older adults' performance on everyday problem-solving tasks varies across methods of assessment. An increasing number of studies have focused on older adults' functioning on cognitive tasks of daily living (Hess, 1990;Poon, Rubin, & Wilson, 1989;Rogoff & Lave, 1984;Sinnott, 1989;Sinnott & Cavanaugh, 1991; Sternberg & Wagner, 1986), but most studies have considered performance only in delimited task domains, using single measures of performance. In addition, there has been little theoretical or empirical integration across studies of adult everyday problem solving. Several reasons exist for this. First, as a clearly identifiable subfield of inquiry, research into the everyday cognition of older adults is relatively new (Woodruff-Pak, 1989). Second, little consensus has been reached on what the defining task properties of everyday cognition might be and what the best methods for assessing these properties are. Indeed, even a standard nomenclature for distinguishing everyday cognition from other kinds of cognition does not yet exist; terms such as practical problem solving (Denney, 1989), everyday problem solving (Cornelius & Caspi, 1987), everyday cognition (Poon et al., 1989), pragmatics of intelligence (P. B. Baltes, 1987), and practical intelligence (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986), among others, have all been used. This diversity of labels, not surprisingly, reflects the even larger diversity of approaches that have evolved for the measurement of these constructs.Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed Sherry L. Willis, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, S-110 Henderson Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, or Michael Marsiske, Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. After July 31, 1995, Michael Marsiske's address will be the Institute for Gerontology, Wayne State University, 87 East Ferry Street, 226 Knapp Building, Detroit, Michigan 48202. Electronic mail should be sent via Internet to slw@psuvm.psu.edu or to marsiske@geroserver.iog...

show abstract

“…This was also true in the studies by Holmes and Singer (1961), by Singer (1965), and by Hafner, Weaver and Powell (1970). This factor appears to have a lot in common with what some psychologists (Guilford, 1959) have called the verbal (meaning) factor. Davis (1966) would like to define the word meaning (semantic) factor separately from a verbal reasoning factor.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Alpha Factor Analyses of Reading Measures at the Elementary, Secondary, and College Levels

Sassenrath¹

1972

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correlation matrices consisting largely of variables related to reading were corrected for attentuation or errors of measurement, and were factor analyzed separately for fourth graders, senior high school, and college undergraduate students. There were 283 students and 28 variables at the elementary level, 400 students and 46 variables at the high school level, and 126 students and 19 variables at the college level. The major results indicated that speed and comprehension in reading were separate factors at the college level but were combined into one factor of general reading ability at the two younger age levels. A separate factor of word analysis or word attack skills appeared for the two older age groups but was incorporated into the general reading ability factor at the elementary level. The reading comprehension or general reading ability factor at all age levels consisted of a large number of variables or skills that need to be learned in order to read well.Since Holmes published his early studies of the "substrata factor theory of reading" with college students (1954), similar studies, employing somewhat different reading variables, have been conducted on secondary school (Holmes and Singer, 1961) and elementary school students (Singer, 1964(Singer, , 1965. The basic assumption of the substrata factor theory is that a person's ability to read is dependent upon many subabilities or factors, e.g., vocabulary, phonics, etc. How the person integrates and utilizes these factors, along with the complexity of the reading material, and his interests all determine to a large extent his general capacity to read. In order to determine which subabilities or factors underlie general capacity to read the studies by Holmes and by Singer involved administering tests, appropriate to the age level of the students, which on logical or empirical grounds were thought to correlate with either speed or power (comprehension) of reading. Correlation matrices among the test scores were computed separately for each age level. The major analyses of the data then consisted of computing multiple correlations (R) with either speed or power of reading separately as the dependent or criterion variable. The variable with the largest contribution to variance was then used to replace the former criterion variable and a substrata or second-order (R) analysis was then calculated. This procedure was then employed for a third-order substrata (R) analysis (Holmes, 1965).

show abstract

Three faces of intellect.

Cited by 738 publications

References 2 publications

An Investigation of the State of Creativity and Critical Thinking in Engineering Undergraduates

An Investigation of the State of Creativity and Critical Thinking in Engineering Undergraduates

Dimensionality of everyday problem solving in older adults.

Alpha Factor Analyses of Reading Measures at the Elementary, Secondary, and College Levels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About