| Title |
Normative data for Chinese compound remote associate problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-016-0849-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ching-Lin Wu, Hsueh-Chih Chen |
| Abstract |
The Remote Associates Test (RAT) is a well-known measure of creativity, with each item on the RAT is composed of three unrelated stimulus words. The participant's task is to find an answer in the form of a word that could combine with each of the stimulus words, thus forming three new actual nouns. Researchers have modified the RAT to develop compound remote associate problems that emphasize combining vocabulary to form compound words. In the field of creativity research for Mandarin speakers, the Chinese RAT has been widely applied for over 10 years. The original RAT, compound remote associate problems, and Chinese RAT have various common advantages, such as being convenient to use and having objective scoring; additionally, the development of items for certain tests is easy and satisfies the requirements of psychological assessments in terms of the quantity of items. Currently, many language editions of the RAT and compound remote associate problems already exist. In particular, the English and Italian versions of these tests already have derived normative data. Because approximately 20% of the world's population are native Mandarin speakers, and because increasing numbers of people are choosing Mandarin as a second language, the need to increase Mandarin-language resources is growing; however, normative data for the Chinese RAT still do not exist. To address this issue, in the present study we developed Chinese compound remote associate problems and analyzed the passing rates by items, problem solving times, and various normative data, using the responses of 253 subjects in three experiments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 26% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#2,100
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,401
of 322,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#36
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.