Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Analysis of the Descriptive and Psychometric

Characteristics of the Internal Structure of the Ribs
in Spanish

Verónica López-Fernández, César Merino-Soto, María Luisa Maldonado

Fruto & César Augusto Orozco Garavito

To cite this article: Verónica López-Fernández, César Merino-Soto, María Luisa Maldonado
Fruto & César Augusto Orozco Garavito (2019) Analysis of the Descriptive and Psychometric
Characteristics of the Internal Structure of the Ribs in Spanish, Creativity Research Journal, 31:2,
229-235, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1577123

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577123

Published online: 23 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 31(2), 229–235, 2019
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print/1532-6934 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1577123

Analysis of the Descriptive and Psychometric

Characteristics of the Internal Structure of the Ribs in
Spanish
Verónica López-Fernández
Profesora e Investigadora de la Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR)

César Merino-Soto
Universidad de San Martín de Porres

María Luisa Maldonado Fruto

Magisterio Colombiano en Idioma Extranjero

César Augusto Orozco Garavito

Universidad Autónoma del Caribe

This study analyzed the internal structure of the Runco Ideational Behavior Scale
(RIBS) in a sample of 116 Spanish-speaking individuals. The characteristics of the
items and the structural relationship with the construct were analyzed. The results
supported a 2-factor model and showed good discrimination. The reliability of the
scores was satisfactory for group and individual descriptive purposes. The application
of hierarchical modeling seemed to justify a second order dimension, but showed little
variance. The results obtained are discussed and an interpretation of the findings is
proposed. The RIBS can be an adequate and relevant instrument in Spanish sample to
measure creativity.

Creativity is certainly an important variable in different fields of
life (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-2001). It could be defined as
a capacity that can be developed and potentialized, which allows
obtaining new, original, and valid products (Runco & Jaeger,
2012). For Pizarro, Detweiler-Bedell, and Bloom (2006), crea-
tivity is linked to functions of flexibility and innovation pro-
cesses. This is the reason why creative thinking stands out for
originality, expressiveness, and flexibility, and is characterized
by finding novel ideas facing different problem situations.
To enhance this ability, it is necessary that a starting
point of such a construct can be evaluated. However, the
evaluation of creativity is complex because the construct is
Address correspondence to Verónica López-Fernández, Profesora
e Investigadora de la Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR),
Avda. La Paz 137, Logroño, La Rioja 26006, España. E-mail: veronica.
lopez@unir.net
itself. There are several tools for assessing creativity. In
Spain, there are specific instruments such as the CREA test
(Corbalán et al., 2003), which is a cognitive measure of
creativity that assesses the subject’s ability to generate
questions in the theoretical context of searching and pro-
blem-solving. Another relevant instrument in this popula-
tion is the Test de Marín (1995), which seeks an overall
view of the state of development of its creative potential-
ities and consists of a verbal part and a graphic part with
two exercises. In addition, another instrument of great
importance is the Prueba de Imaginación Creativa (PIC)
test (Artola, Ancillo, Barraca, Mosteiro, & Pina, 2004) that
measures divergent thinking through three verbal and one
graphic game. Finally, the Test de Creatividad
Infantil (TCI) (Romo, Alfonso Benlliure, & Sánchez Ruíz,
2008) is an instrument that seeks the evaluation of culture
fair creative thinking through a preliminary drawing. These
performance tests would be based on more objective
230 LÓPEZ-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.
indications of the creative construct. However, the other
large group of instruments, questionnaires, self-reports, and
tests involving subjective judgment were also necessary to
complete the research because there are few studies on
them in Spain (López, 2015), even with tests that have
been adapted from other countries.
One of them is The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale,
RIBS; (Runco et al. (2000-2001), which is based on the
foundation that ideas could be treated as original products
and divergent nature (Runco et al. (2000-2001), and also be
approximated by the report by the person to be evaluated
(Kālis & Roķe, 2011).
The RIBS scale has been adapted and studied in
different countries in non-Hispanic contexts. One of the
studies was carried out in Latvia. Kālis and Roķe (2011)
performed an adaptation of the RIBS-09 test (consisting
of 49 items). They translated the test into Latvian and
applied it to two adult samples. The results showed that
the Latvian version has high internal consistency. More
recently, Chen (2015) performed the Chinese version of
the RIBS test, in this case on the original version of
Runco et al. (2000-2001) of 23 items. In this study, the
adaptation to the Chinese language was performed and
the instrument was applied to a sample of 107 partici-
pants. The results showed a good internal consistency
among the 23 items, and it was evidenced by
a confirmatory analysis that the test best suits a two-
factor model. This finding is congruent with the results
of Runco et al. (2000-2001), who also found that two
factors fit the model better, but for lack of theoretical
support, it is more convenient to interpret the results
under a single factor within the model. In this sense,
the adaptation of Kālis and Roķe (2011) in Latvia also
calls into question the solution of a single factor.
This study analized the RIBS in a Spanish-speaking
sample. The 23-item version has been selected because it
has good internal consistency in the rest of the studies and
is the shortest version of the scale. The specific objective of
this brief report was to explore the descriptive and psycho-
metric characteristics of the internal structure of the RIBS,
in a specific Hispanic context and different from previous
studies, in which the participants were American (Runco
et al. (2000-2001). Specifically, the distributional character-
istics of the items are examined, and its structural relation-
ship with its construct. These results also serve as an
evaluation of the capacity of the construct’s internal struc-
ture to be generalizable in a different cultural context
because there is no evidence reported in Spanish speakers.
On the other hand, a set of quantitative explorations rigor-
ously executed on the univariate characteristics of its items
and their relations with the construct is relevant to establish
hypotheses about specific patterns of convergent or diver-
gent relations between the items and their associated con-
structs in later studies.
METHOD
Participants
Hispanics from different cities coming from that country
formed the population of reference. A total of 116 partici-
pants (men: 26, 22.4%, women: 86, 74%, 4 nonreporting)
from a wide range of Spanish cities. The mean age was
35.9 (SD = 8.0), and ranged from 22 to 55 years old. Age
differences were detected (ZMann-Whitney = 2.27,
p < 0.05), in which men tended to exhibit older age, but
was rather small (rMann-Whitney = 0.21). The activity of
the participants was predominantly the teaching (101,
87.1%) of regular education, in different subjects. There
were also students (4, 3.4%) and other professionals who
together were 10 (8.6%); 1 subject did not report their
activity. The sample was non-probabilistically extracted
for convenience.
The RIBS (Runco et al. (2000-2001)) consists of 23
items of which subjects must indicate the frequency of
occurrence of each, on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to
5 (very often). The instructions of the instrument guide the
examinee to generate his response from a general perspec-
tive regarding his behavior.
Procedure
For the application of the RIBS to the participants, it was
first translated into Spanish spoken in Spain. A team of two
people specialized in psychology and creativity translated it
from English to Spanish independently (see Appendix).
The translations were analyzed and considered appropriate
and consistent with one another.
The administration of the instrument involved two
phases in the process. The first included information on
the study and the assurance that the results would be treated
confidentially. In all cases, the knowledge and informed
consent of each of the participants were counted. Second,
examinees were shown the instrument and explained what
the test consisted of and how to respond and record their
responses, as well as their sociodemographic data.
RESULTS
The univariate descriptive characteristics of the items were
made using standardized statistics, such as the index of
ordinal variation (IOV, Berry & Mielke, 1994), which
serves to assess variability; it is expressed in values of 1
(maximum variability) and 0 (null variability). The dip
statistic (Hartigan & Hartigan, 1985) examines the unim-
odality of the item compared to a theoretical distribution of
maximum multimodality (uniform distribution). Univariate
distributional characteristics were analyzed by means of
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 231

asymmetry and kurtosis statistics (Fisher, 1970), which
served as inputs to evaluate statistical normality (Jarque &
Bera, 1987).
Prior to the main analyzes, some data quality controls
were performed regarding response rate and response pat-
terns. A complete questionnaire response rate of 93.1% was
obtained; 6 (5.2%) and 2 (1.7%) subjects did not respond to
1 or 2 items respectively. Consequently, given this low
percentage of lost values in the 9 subjects, their absent
responses were replaced by the modal response in the
corresponding item. About the acquiescent response,
a subject responded with option 5 to the 22 items of the
RIBS. Its removal did not produce any appreciable impact,
so it was assumed that a subject could express such inten-
sity of response in the construct and it was maintained in
the database. No other suspicious patterns were detected
(extreme response, central response, etc.).
About the univariate item analysis, the distributional
results indicated, in general, mild or moderate negative or
positive asymmetric distributions, and mainly negative kurto-
sis, indicating that the orientation of the responses is not the
same (see Table 1). The combined effect of asymmetry and
distortions on kurtosis did not have a serious enough impact to
reject the hypothesis of distributional normality of the items,
except in two items, 10 and 14. Compared with the distribu-
tion 2 (gl = 2), the JB coefficient for both items showed that
normality could be not be accepted. In the rest of the items, it
could be a possible acceptance that the departure from uni-
variate normality may not be strong. The multivariate tests
(Small, 1980) for asymmetry Q1 = 61.68, gl = 23, p < 0.01)
and normality (VQ3 = 151.88, gl = 46, p < 0.01) indicated that
the nonmultivariate normality of the items. On the other hand,
the dip test indicated that in all items, except item 10, the
unimodality could not be accepted. Therefore, the items
obtained more than one modal categories of response.
Structural analysis
Regarding the structural analysis, a semiconfirmatory
approach was applied, using the Procrustes rotation of the
data matrix toward a target matrix containing the hypothe-
sized location of the items in their factors (Ferrando, Varea,
& Lorenzo, 1999; Laher, 2010; McCrae, Zonderman, Bond,
& Paunonen, 1996). This target matrix was specified as
follows: Items of factor 1 were allowed to load on it,
without some information about its magnitude, and its
load was set to zero in factor 2; this same specification
was applied for factor 2. To evaluate the adjustment in this
approach, the coefficient of congruence Π (Burt, 1948;
Tucker, 1951) applied to each item (Πi), to the factors
(Πf) and to the total solution (ΠT); was used; it quantifies
the degree of similarity between two vectors of factorial
load. This comparison is made between the empirically
extracted factor loads and the hypothetical specification of

TABLE 1
Descriptive information for items of RIBS

M Mo SD Min Max IOV Dip g1 g2 JB

Run1 2.77 3 .945 1 5 0.501 .211** 0.358 0.079 2.422

Run2 3.20 3 .887 1 5 0.469 .137** −0.022 −0.016 0.030
Run3 3.80 4 .906 1 5 0.487 .146** −0.380 −0.265 3.162
Run4 3.64 4 .806 2 5 0.429 .194** 0.046 −0.542 1.614
Run5 3.03 3 .913 1 5 0.481 .103** 0.071 0.064 0.095
Run6 2.59 2 1.111 1 5 0.611 .142** 0.318 −0.615 3.886
Run7 2.97 3 1.123 1 5 0.618 .129** −0.136 −0.668 2.653
Run8 3.33 3 .994 1 5 0.534 .129** −0.051 −0.271 0.514
Run9 3.38 3 .910 2 5 0.492 .142** 0.225 −0.704 3.496
Run10 4.21 4 .839 1 5 0.424 .004 −1.127 1.483 32.968*
Run12 3.67 4 1.125 1 5 0.530 .198** 0.810 0.114 12.373
Run13 3.18 4 1.124 1 5 0.603 197** −0.739 −0.042 10.319
Run19 3.39 3 1.086 1 5 0.621 .129** −0.178 −0.821 3.989
Run20 2.66 3 1.134 1 5 0.709 .172** 0.618 −0.750 10.065*
Run21 2.66 3 1.021 1 5 0.673 .125** 0.141 −0.938 4.729
Run22 3.13 3 1.051 1 5 0.651 .125** 0.119 −0.797 3.469
Run23 2.77 3 1.130 1 5 0.669 .127** 0.025 −0.930 4.298
Run11 2.07 2 1.002 1 5 0.720 .120 0.099 −1.163 6.740
Run14 2.47 2 1.302 1 5 0.594 .155** −0.287 −0.492 2.871
Run15 2.84 2 1.208 1 5 0.622 .180 0.222 −0.552 2.549
Run16 2.78 3 1.173 1 5 0.557 .172 0.169 −0.504 1.916
Run17 2.86 3 1.201 1 5 0.574 .125 −0.035 −0.479 1.279
Run18 2.97 2 1.288 1 5 0.620 .107 0.067 −0.608 2.025

Note. M = median. Mo = mode. SD = standard deviation. Min = minimum. Max = maximum. IOV = ordinal variation index. Dip = unimodality test. g1
= asimetria. g2 = kurtosis. JB = omnibus normality test.
232 LÓPEZ-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

the items in their expected factors (target matrix). The force to the general factor because there they all had high
adjustment criterion is Π ≥ 0.90 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ten factor loads. The factor 1 items maintained their heteroge-
Berge, 2006; McCrae et al., 1996). The adjustment was neity in the magnitude of their factorial loads. Except for
also evaluated by adding a measure of simplicity of the three items of F1, it is also observed that the loads in Fg
factor solution for the items, factors, and total solution were above 0.30 constant criterion to assess the factor loads
(Fleming, 2003; Fleming & Merino, 2005). Finally, to (Wolff & Preising, 2005), several were close to this limit,
examine the feasibility of the interpretation of a higher- and that the factorial strength of the Items varied according
order dimension, the Schmid and Leiman (1957) transfor- to the first order factor. The total variance explained by Fg
mation was applied from the exploratory framework, to was 43.5%; the F1 and F2 factors accounted for 39.6%
differentiate the variance of the first-order factors (factors (32.5% and 7.1%, respectively), both not substantially
1 and 2) against a common or general dimension. The different.
greater the proportion of variance explained by the com- The internal consistency reliability (α) for F1 and F2
mon general factor, the interpretation of a single general was 0.91 and 0.83, respectively. The differences between
dimension could be ensured (Wolff & Preising, 2005). these reliabilities were statistically significant: 2 (gl:
The Bartlett statistic (2, gl: 253 = 1569.5, p < 0.01) and the 1) = 13.09, p < 0.001 (Lautenschlager & Meade, 2008).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO = 0.885) verified that the cor- Using the loads of the first factorial analysis, using the
relation matrix was not identity. Two solutions were extracted, coefficient ω (McDonald, 1999), the reliability was 0.85
one of two factors and one of a factor. The 1-factor solution and 0.83. The discrepancies found in F1 appear to reflect
yielded RMSR = 0.111; the two-factor model, RMSR = 0.066; correlated errors between some items (Raykov, 2001).
compared to the criterion derived from the standard error of Comparing the value of α in men and women, F1 was
correlation (.093; Kelley, 1935), the two-factor model seems to equal for both groups (0.92), and in F2, it was higher in
be more representative of the data structure. women (0.84 vs. 0.80). However, these differences were
The results of the factorial analysis (Table 2) showed the not statistically significant, W = 1.17, F (51, 24) = 0.577,
following: F2 factor loads were > 0.65 (except item 11); F1 p = 0.33 (Merino-Soto, 2016).
showed seven items at or below 0.40; even its item 1 was
completely divergent because it loaded on the other factor. TABLE 2
The evaluation of the adjustment using the coefficient of Factor analysis results
congruence (Π) for these factors (ΠF) was acceptable for
F2, but unacceptable for F1. The impact of items with low Análisis Factorial Transformación Schmid-
Semiconfirmatorio Leiman
factor load, most related to their low congruence coefficients
(Πi), is the main source of the low F1 adjustment. The F1 F2 Πi IFS F1 F2 Fg
adjustment of the total solution of two factors (ΠT = 0.886)
Run1 −0.014 0.646 −0.022 0.999 −0.011 0.309 0.558
was also below the critical criterion (Π < 0.90), indicating Run2 0.734 −0.033 0.999 0.996 0.577 −0.016 0.424
the questionable general adjustment. Run3 0.391 0.066 0.986 0.945 0.307 0.032 0.299
On the other hand, the load of the items in the noncorre- Run4 0.822 −0.197 0.973 0.891 0.647 −0.094 0.335
sponding factor was essentially close to zero, the degree of Run5 0.717 −0.097 0.991 0.964 0.564 −0.046 0.358
factorial simplicity of each item (IFS) confirmed that. Table Run6 0.567 0.070 0.992 0.970 0.446 0.034 0.412
Run7 0.270 0.370 0.589 0.305 0.212 0.177 0.492
2 also shows these results, observing a reduced factorial Run8 0.862 −0.150 0.985 0.941 0.678 −0.072 0.400
complexity of the items (around IFS = 0.90), except for Run9 0.820 −0.228 0.964 0.856 0.645 −0.109 0.306
items 7, 12, and 13, whose complexity was excessively Run10 0.436 −0.031 0.998 0.990 0.343 −0.015 0.242
high. The degree of factorial simplicity for the solution of Run12 0.259 0.386 0.556 0.379 0.203 0.185 0.499
F1 (0.96), F2 (0.91), and total (0.95) was high. The correla- Run13 0.422 0.360 0.761 0.158 0.332 0.172 0.577
Run19 0.380 0.058 0.988 0.954 0.299 0.028 0.286
tion between the factors (0.56) was moderately high, which Run20 0.632 0.107 0.986 0.944 0.497 0.051 0.485
indicates that there was a significant amount of linear depen- Run21 0.709 0.101 0.990 0.960 0.557 0.048 0.526
dence between them. To evaluate the dependence of these Run22 0.785 −0.076 0.995 0.981 0.617 −0.036 0.418
factors in relation to the interpretation of a single factor, the Run23 0.677 0.098 0.990 0.959 0.532 0.047 0.504
results of the Schmid Leiman (SL) transformation are evi- Run11 −0.094 0.440 0.978 0.913 −0.074 0.211 0.329
Run14 0.018 0.749 1.000 0.999 0.014 0.358 0.669
denced. The application of the SL transformation showed Run15 0.011 0.707 1.000 1.000 0.009 0.338 0.628
that the introduction of the general factor (Fg) reduced the Run16 0.072 0.665 0.994 0.977 0.057 0.318 0.628
variance of the items in their factors, obtained in the first Run17 0.090 0.684 0.991 0.966 0.071 0.327 0.656
analysis. On the other hand, except for two items, the rest Run18 −0.175 0.748 0.974 0.896 −0.138 0.358 0.549
may still be representative of their factors but the strength of ΠF 0.844 0.915
this relationship varies substantially in factor 2 (F2). Indeed, Note. Π: Coefficients of congruence for the items (Πi) y factors (ΠF).
the strength of their items was reduced and they gave more IFS - index of factorial simplicity. Fg = General factor

DISCUSSION
The results, at this stage of the investigation of the RIBS
adaptation to the Hispanic context, confirmed that there
were two latent variables, which best represent the con-
struct measured by the RIBS. Indeed, the items were
grouped into two clear factors and represent the replicabil-
ity of the results presented by Runco et al. (2000-2001). As
the results replicate the RIBS factorial configuration in this
context, RIBS empirically appears to show the same con-
figuration in another group of participants. It might be
overly optimistic to conclude this, given that the results’
robustness of the measurement model has been tested in
another context of participants, and especially in the small
sample situation because it capitalizes the sampling error
and reduces the variability of the data. Factor 2, in the study
by Runco et al. (2000-2001), was not conceptually inter-
preted, and its substance lost representativeness in relation
to the construct measured by RIBS; but the decision to
interpret a single latent variable common to all RIBS
items does not seem empirically supported, and this study
strengthens this. The replication of both factors is a strong
argument for considering the substance of factor 2 as an
additional component to the definition of ideational
behavior.
On the other hand, the results of the adjustment
obtained must also be evaluated in relation to the defini-
tion of the structural hypothesis of the items. That is, the
matrix into which the Procrustean approach was applied it
was specified so that divergent loads were zero; to the
extent that this specification is not similar to the factor
solution obtained, the adjustment could also be presented
as deficient (Ferrando & Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010)
The items showed some predominant characteristics. In
this sense, factor 1 items showed a stronger psychometric
definition compared to factor 2, suggesting good conver-
gence in their construct, and generally very good diver-
gence from the other factor compared. This also indicates
that the items show a good distinctive capacity to charac-
terize their construct, and could be interpreted in a clear and
interpretatively valid way (Merino & Grimaldo, 2010;
Navarro, Merino, Dominquez, & Fleming, 2016). In addi-
tion, this situation strengthens the psychometric and con-
ceptual unidimensionality of both factors. Although the
complexity may be reasonable in a theoretical framework
that justifies it (Merino & Grimaldo, 2010) or as idiosyn-
cratic effect of the sample of participants, the decision to
retain or maintain these items in the RIBS could not be
decided in this study. On the other hand, and within the
context of the partition of the variance using the SL trans-
formation, in general, it seems to be observed that the items
are erratic with respect to the amount of variance contrib-
uted to the general factor, and relatively smaller than the
loads in the specific factors F1 And F2; additionally,
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 233
several items do not show sufficient magnitude to exceed
the limit 0.30 (Wolff & Preising, 2005) against possible
sampling variations. These results seem to support the fact
that, considering that the SL transformation is more precise
in identifying the source of variation of the items, the
decision to use the scores derived from the two factors is
more reasonable. In the scenario of being oriented to decide
by a one-dimensional measure, the items with the highest
loads in Fg and that represent a greater conceptual coverage
with the construct, may be the most relevant. It is also
important to highlight the true level of variance associated
with the score could be considered good, for both factors,
and independently of the number of items in each one. This
level seems to support the use of RIBS scores for group and
descriptive research of subjects.
A possible explanation for the finding of two different
factors within the test construct could be related to the fact
that the items of the second factor are related to negative
aspects about the ideas compared to the items of the first
factor. The items that affect the second factor are related to
poor applicability, forgetfulness, problems in sleeping and
dispersion; on the whole, these behaviors could be thought
of as not constructive for creative performance, but the
moderately high correlation with factor 1 suggests that
they are recurrent with the creative behavior expressed in
this factor. On the other hand, the items of the first factor
are related to implications that can be considered more
positive about creative products and original ideas.
The results of this study should be considered within the
context of their limitations. These include the sample size,
the nature of the sample of participants, and other aspects
of validity that were not explored; future studies should
expand the sample size. On the other hand, the study pre-
sented has been carried out with adults, whose mean age
was 35.9 years; the study by Chen (2015) was performed
with children with a mean age of 11.19. On the other hand,
Runco et al., 2000-2001 and Kālis & Roķe (2011) had
samples of different ages in each of their studies. It would
be interesting in the future to analyze the behavior of the
scale in terms of age and specific contexts. On the other
hand, the limited characteristics of the sample may not
ensure the generalization of these results; however, the
replication of the two factors seems to suggest we are
facing a replicable RIBS structure. Finally, the measure-
ment invariance, as well as the correlates of both factors,
should be tested in the next intercultural research agenda
using the RIBS.
Another important limitation is the very complexity of
evaluating the creative construct for the diversity of
approaches that compose it. The self-report method investi-
gated is only one component of this process, and the validity
of its interpretation and use should provide correlational
converge with other relevant measures. This is, at this
stage of the RIBS Hispanic validation, a goal of future
234 LÓPEZ-FERNÁNDEZ ET AL.
research. It is necessary to continue researching the proper-
ties of this instrument to evaluate creativity, for its important
implications in the lives of people and in the advancement of
societies within an intercultural framework.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all the people who have collaborated in this
research, especially Manuela Mena, María Luisa Maldonado
and César Augusto Orozco for their support in the translation.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Verónica López-Fernández http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
0483-5884
César Merino-Soto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1407-
8306
REFERENCES
Artola, T., Ancillo, I., Barraca, J., Mosteiro, P., & Pina, J. (2004). PIC,
Prueba de Imaginación Creativa. Madrid, España: TEA Ediciones.
Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W., Jr. (1994). A test of significance for the
index of ordinal variation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1291–1295.
Burt, C. (1948). The factorial study of temperament traits. British Journal of
Psychology, Statistical Section, 1, 178–203. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8317.1948.tb00236.x
Chen, K. T. (2015). Assessing a Chinese version of the Runco Ideational
Behavior Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: an International
Journal, 43(7), 1111–1122. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1111
Corbalán, F. J., Martínez, F., Alonso, C., Donolo, D., Tejerina, M., &
Limiñana, R. M. (2003). CREA. Inteligencia Creativa. Una medida
cognitiva de la creatividad. Madrid, España: TEA Ediciones.
Ferrando, P., Varea, M., & Lorenzo, U. (1999). Evaluación psicométrica del
cuestionario de ansiedad y rendimiento (CAR) en una muestra de escolares
[Psychometric evaluation of the anxiety and performance questionnaire
(CAR) in a sample of schoolchildren]. Psicothema, 11, 225–236.
Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial
como técnica de investigación en psicología [Factor analysis as
a research technique in psychology]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, 18–33.
Fisher, R. A. (1970). Statistical methods for research workers (14th ed.).
Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
Fleming, J. S. (2003). Computing measures of simplicity of fit for loadings
in factor-analytically derived scales. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments & Computers, 35(4), 520–524. doi:10.3758/bf03195531
Fleming, J. S., & Merino, C. (2005). Medidas de simplicidad y de ajuste
factorial: Un enfoque para la construcción y revisión de escalas derivadas
factorialmente [Measures of simplicity and factorial adjustment: An
approach to the construction and revision of factorially derived scales].
Revista de Psicología de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 23
(2), 252–266.
Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M. (1985). The dip test of unimodality.
Annals of Statistics, 13, 70–84. doi:10.1214/aos/1176346577
Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1987). A test for normality of observations
and regression residuals. International Statistical Review, 55, 163–172.
doi:10.2307/1403192
Kālis, E., & Roķe, L. (2011). Adaptation of runco ideational behavior
scale in Latvia. Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology Signum Temporis,
4(1), 36–45. doi:10.1037/e578442014-162
Kelley, T. L. (1935). Essential traits of mental life. Harvard studies in
education (Vol. 26, pp. 146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Laher, S. (2010). Using exploratory factor analysis in personality research:
Best-practice recommendations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
36. doi:10.4102/sajip.v36i1.873
Lautenschlager, G. J., & Meade, A. W. (2008). AlphaTest: A windows pro-
gram for tests of hypotheses about coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 23, 502–503. doi:10.1177/0146621607312307
López, V. (2015). Importancia de la valoración de la creatividad desde las
bases neuropsicológicas [Importance of the assessment of creativity
from the neuropsychological bases]. In P. Martín-Lobo & E. Vergara-
Moragues (Eds.), Procesos e instrumentos de evaluación
neuropsicológica educativa (pp. 140–161). Madrid, España: Ministerio
de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker’s Congruence
Coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2,
57–64. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
Marín, R. (1995). La creatividad: Diagnóstico, evaluación e investigación.
Madrid, España: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia,
UNED.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V.
(1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes
rotation. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 70, 552–566.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merino, C., & Grimaldo, M. (2010). Complejidad factorial de la permisi-
vidad moral hacia las conductas morales controvertidas [Factorial
Complexity of Moral Permissiveness toward controversial moral
behaviors]. Interdisciplinaria, 27(2), 297–314.
Merino-Soto, C. (2016). Diferencias entre coeficientes alfa de Cronbach,
con muestras y partes pequeñas: Un programa VB [Differences between
Cronbach’s alpha, in Little samples and parts: A VB program]. Anales
de Psicología, 32(2), 587–588. doi:10.6018/analesps.32.2.203841
Navarro, J., Merino, C., Dominquez, S., & Fleming, J. (2016). Importancia de la
evaluación de la simplicidad factorial: Re-análisis a Zicado, Palma y Garrido
(2012) [carta al Editor] [Importance of the evaluation of the factorial simpli-
city: Re-analysis to Zicado, Palma and Garrido (2012)]. Revista
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, niñez y Juventud, 1, 1682–1684.
Pizarro, D. A., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Bloom, P. (2006). The creativity of
everyday moral reasoning: empathy, disgust and moral persuasion. In
J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive develop-
ment (pp. 81–98). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Raykov, T. (2001). Bias of coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures
with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69–76.
doi:10.1177/01466216010251005
Romo, M., Alfonso Benlliure, V., & Sánchez Ruíz, M. J. (2008). TCI: Test
de Creatividad Infantil. Madrid, España: TEA Ediciones.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J., & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and
psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity
Research Journal, 13, 393–400. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1334_16

Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor
solutions. Psychometrika, 22(1), 53–61. doi:10.1007/bf02289209
Small, N. J. H. (1980). Marginal skewness and kurtosis in testing multi-
variate normality. Applied Statistics, 29, 85–87. doi:10.2307/2346414
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies.
Personnel Research Section Report, 984. Washington, DC: Department
of the Army.
Wolff, H. G., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and higher order
factor structure with the Schmid-Leiman solution: Syntax codes for
SPSS and SAS. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &
Computers, 37, 48–58. doi:10.3758/bf03206397
APPENDIX
Escala de evaluación del comportamiento ideacional de
Runco (The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale, RIBS)
Instructions in Spanish:
A continuación se muestran afirmaciones de las que has
de responder en una escala de 1 a 5. Siendo 1 que nunca; 2
pocas veces; 3 algunas veces; 4 muchas veces y 5 siempre
o casi siempre
Primer factor
1. Se me ocurren muchas ideas alocadas.
2. Suelo tener ideas con más frecuencia que la mayoría
de la gente.
3. Normalmente me entusiasmo con las ideas que tengo.
4. Se me ocurren muchas ideas o soluciones a problemas.
5. Doy con ideas y soluciones que a la mayoría de la
gente nunca antes se le han ocurrido.
6. Me gusta jugar a generar ideas por pura diversión.
7. Considero que es importante ser capaz de pensar en
alternativas alocadas y disparatadas.
8. Me considero una persona con gran capacidad para
generar nuevas ideas.
9. Siempre he sido un pensador activo – siempre se me
ocurren ideas.
10. Me gusta tener libertad y margen para decidir sobre
las cosas que hago.
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 235
12. Realizaría un curso que estuviera basado en ideas
originales.
13. Soy capaz de pasarme horas pensando detenida-
mente en una idea.
19. Procuro ejercitar mi mente analizando las cosas en
profundidad.
20. Soy capaz de dar con respuestas a problemas para
los que todavía no se han encontrado soluciones.
21. Soy capaz de combinar ideas de formas que a otros
jamás se les había ocurrido.
22. Mis amigos me piden que les ayude a pensar ideas
y soluciones.
23. Se me ocurren ideas para generar inventos o mejorar
cosas.
Segundo factor
11. La gente suele considerar mis ideas poco prácticas
e incluso alocadas.
14. A veces me intereso tanto por una nueva idea que me
olvido de mis obligaciones.
14. A veces me intereso tanto por una nueva idea que me
olvido de mis obligaciones.
14. A veces me intereso tanto por una nueva idea que me
olvido de mis obligaciones.
16. Cuando estoy escribiendo un artículo o hablando en
público, muchas veces me cuesta ceñirme a un solo
tema como consecuencia de todas las ideas que se
me van ocurriendo.
17. En muchas ocasiones siento cómo una idea me con-
duce a otras ideas que, a su vez, me conducen a otras
y al final me encuentro con una idea que no sé muy
bien de dónde procede.
18.Mucha gente podría pensar que soy algo despistado/a
o distraído/a porque a veces pienso en muchas cosas
a la vez.