Developing an assessment framework of interdisciplinary innovation ability

Abstract

Given the importance of interdisciplinary innovation ability (IIA) in addressing complex real-world problems, this study aims to develop a comprehensive assessment framework for IIA using a three-step methodological approach. First, an initial framework was constructed based on a systematic theoretical analysis. Second, the framework was refined and validated through a two-round Delphi process involving five experts. Third, the measurement model was validated using SPSS AMOS (version 24) with data collected from 209 undergraduate students participating in a university summer camp, to examine the reliability and validity of the proposed framework. The findings indicate that IIA comprises five primary dimensions—innovative personality, innovative thinking, innovative skills, innovative learning, and innovative product—along with 12 secondary indices. Compared with existing IIA assessment frameworks, the proposed framework demonstrates stronger theoretical grounding, a more comprehensive structure, and empirical validation, thereby offering both theoretical insights and practical implications for future interdisciplinary innovation research.

Keywords

• Assessment framework
• Interdisciplinary innovation ability
• Delphi method
• Confirmatory factor analysis

References

1. Akkerman, S.F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
2. Allen, A.P., & Thomas, K.E. (2011). A dual process account of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571183
3. Altshuller, G. (2002). 40 principles: TRIZ keys to technical innovation (Vol. 1). Technical Innovation Center.
4. Alʹtshuller, G.S., Shulyak, L.A., & Rodman, S. (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical creativity. Technical Innovation Center.
5. Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International Studies in The Philosophy of Science, 25(4), 387 403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.623366
6. Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
7. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K., & Nijstad, B.A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state‐of‐the‐science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
8. Arnold, R.D., & Wade, J.P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050

9. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J.C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158 163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554310
10. Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2021). Interdisciplinary systems thinking for a new scientific paradigm: Toward a re-founding of human values. In G. Minati (Ed.), Multiplicity and Interdisciplinarity (pp. 17–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71877-0_3
11. Berasategi, N., Aróstegui, I., Jaureguizar, J., Aizpurua, A., Guerra, N., & Arribillaga-Iriarte, A. (2020). Interdisciplinary learning at the university: Assessment of an interdisciplinary experience based on the case study methodology. Sustainability, 12(18), Article 7732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187732
12. Blackwell, A.F., Wilson, L., Boulton, C., & Knell, J. (2009). Radical innovation: Crossing knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams (Technical Report No. UCAM-CL-TR-760). University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.48456/tr-760
13. Boateng, G.O., Neilands, T.B., Frongillo, E.A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R., & Young, S.L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
14. Brooks, C.F. (2017). Disciplinary convergence and interdisciplinary curricula for students in an information society. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(3), 206 213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1155470
15. Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2023). What is systems thinking? In J.M. Spector, B.B. Lockee, & M.D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1495-1522). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_100
16. Calik, E., Calisir, F., & Cetinguc, B. (2017). A scale development for innovation capability measurement. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 5(2), 69 76. https://doi.org/10.18178/joams.5.2.69-76
17. Cropley, D.H. (2006). The role of creativity as a driver of innovation. In K.H. Chai, C.C. Hang, & M. Xie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 561 565). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIT.2006.262281
18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial.
19. Delibalta, B., Yıldırım, Y., & Teker, G.T. (2025). Measurement invariance of self-regulated learning perception scale in medical students. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 31, Article e947686. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.947686
20. Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C.M. (2019). The Innovator's DNA, updated, with a new preface: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Press.
21. Edmondson, A.C., & Harvey, J.F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002
22. Fagerberg, J., & David, C.M. (2006). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001
23. Feist, G.J. (2010). The function of personality in creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 113 130). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.009
24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39 50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
25. Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., & Pacheco, R.C.D.S. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001
26. Gotlieb, R.J., Hyde, E., Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Kaufman, S.B. (2019). Imagination is the seed of creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 709-731). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.036
27. Green, A.E., Beaty, R.E., Kenett, Y.N., & Kaufman, J.C. (2023). The process definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 36(3), 544-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2254573
28. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
29. Hacklin, F., & Wallin, M.W. (2013). Convergence and interdisciplinarity in innovation management: A review, critique, and future directions. The Service Industries Journal, 33(7 8), 774 788. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.740471
30. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed., pp. 603-723). Pearson.
31. Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., Sointu, E.T., & Tienken, C.H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9380-1
32. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st-century education: A systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27-37.
33. Hero, L.M., Lindfors, E., & Taatila, V. (2017). Individual innovation competence: A systematic review and future research agenda. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 103 121. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p103
34. Hoang, A.D. (2025). Evaluating bibliometrics reviews: A practical guide for peer review and critical reading. Evaluation Review, 49(6), 1074-1102. https://doi.org./10.1177/0193841X251336839
35. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
36. Huizingh, E.K. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002
37. Ilevbare, I.M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, its benefits, and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33(2-3), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.003
38. Jaskyte, K., Hunter, A., & Mell, A.C. (2024). Predictors of interdisciplinary team innovation in higher education institutions. Innovative Higher Education 49, 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09676-3
39. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
40. Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J.C. (Eds.). (2017). The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. Elsevier Academic Press.
41. Kaufman, J.C., Plucker, J.A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
42. Keinänen, M., Ursin, J., & Nissinen, K. (2018). How to measure students’ innovation competences in higher education: Evaluation of an assessment tool in authentic learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.05.007
43. Kim, S.H., Joo, H.J., Kim, J.Y., Kim, H.J., & Park, E.C. (2022). Healthcare policy agenda for a sustainable healthcare system in Korea: Building consensus using the Delphi method. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 37(39), Article e284. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e284
44. Klaassen, R.G. (2018). Interdisciplinary education: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(6), 842-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417
45. Klein, J.T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 116 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010
46. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford.
47. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
48. Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002
49. Lane, P. (2016). A pedagogy of interdisciplinary innovation. In Proceedings of the International Technology, Education and Development Conference 2016, (pp.4692 4698). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2016.2167
50. Lattuca, L.R., Knight, D., & Bergom, I. (2013). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 726-739. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--21173
51. Li, T., Liu, Z., Yang, H., & Hu, Y. (2023). Using the Delphi technique to achieve consensus on prevention and treatment of preterm single birth in China. Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 5(04), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1097/FM9.0000000000000201
52. Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975). Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley.
53. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). Guilford Press.
54. Mitchell, W.E., & Kowalik, T.F. (1999). Creative problem solving (3rd ed.). NUCEA.
55. Moirano, R., Sánchez, M.A., & Štěpánek, L. (2020). Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, Article 100626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626
56. Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27
57. Nasa, P., Jain, R., & Juneja, D. (2021). Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World Journal of Methodology, 11(4), 116 129. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
58. Newell, W.H., Wentworth, J., & Sebberson, D. (2001). A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 19, 1-25.
59. Nielsen, J.A. (2015). Assessment of innovation competency: A thematic analysis of upper secondary school teachers’ talk. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 318 330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.886178
60. Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: A working definition of interdisciplinarity. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.11575/jet.v29i2.52385
61. Ngugi, J., & Goosen, L. (2018). Modelling course-design characteristics, self-regulated learning, and the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing behavior as drivers of individual innovative behavior. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(8), Article em1575. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92087
62. Pacheco, R.C., Manhães, M., & Maldonado, M.U. (2017). Innovation, interdisciplinarity, and creative destruction. In R. Frodeman, J.T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 303 318). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.25
63. Pérez-Peñalver, M.J., Aznar-Mas, L.E., & Montero Fleta, B. (2018). Identification and classification of behavioural indicators to assess innovation competence. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 11(1), 87-115. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2552
64. Proveniers, A., & Westra, J. (2009). The evaluation carousel: An assessment tool for interdisciplinary science innovation education. In W. Kouwenhoven (Ed.), Advances in technology: Education and development (pp. 281–293). BoD–Books on Demand.
65. Reiter-Palmon, R., Robinson-Morral, E.J., Kaufman, J.C., & Santo, J.B. (2012). Evaluation of self-perceptions of creativity: Is it a useful criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2 3), 107 114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676980
66. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305 310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
67. Rickards, T. (1991). Innovation and creativity: Woods, trees, and pathways. R&D Management. 21(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1991.tb00740.x
68. Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation (Working Paper No. 9/98). Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/old-wp/1998/wp1998n09.pdf
69. Rosina, H., Virgantina, V., Ayyash, Y., Dwiyanti, V., & Boonsong, S. (2021). Vocational education curriculum: Between vocational education and industrial needs. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education, 1(2), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.17509/ajsee.v1i2.33400
70. Runco, M.A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413 446). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205.026
71. Runco, M.A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity research journal, 24(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
72. Runco, M.A., & Pritzker, S.R. (Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of creativity. Elsevier. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacbooks/7
73. Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.12.003
74. Saunila, M., & Ukko, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for the measurement of innovation capability and its effects. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(4), 355 375. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465261211272139
75. Sawyer, R.K., & Henriksen, D. (2024). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197747537.001.0001
76. Schellekens, L.H., Bok, H.G., De Jong, L.H., Van der Schaaf, M.F., Kremer, W.D., & Van der Vleuten, C.P. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, Article 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094
77. Shalley, C.E., & Gilson, L.L. (2017). Creativity and the management of technology: Balancing creativity and standardization. Production and Operations Management, 26(4), 605 616. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12639
78. Spreafico, C., & Russo, D. (2016). TRIZ industrial case studies: A critical survey. Procedia Cirp, 39, 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.165
79. Strijbos, S. (2010). Systems thinking. In R. Frodeman, J.T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 453-470). Oxford University Press.
80. Terninko, J., Zusman, A., & Zlotin, B. (1998). Systematic innovation: An introduction to TRIZ (theory of inventive problem solving). CRC Press.
81. Vehar, J. (2020). Creativity and innovation: What is the difference? In E.G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 558-564). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8
82. Vereijken, M.W., Akkerman, S.F., te Pas, S.F., van der Tuin, I., & Kluijtmans, M. (2023). ‘Undisciplining’ higher education without losing disciplines: Furthering transformative potential for students. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(7), 1762 1775. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2156482
83. Wang, M. (2024). Research on the cultivation of interdisciplinary innovation ability of students in higher vocational colleges and universities. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1), 1 16. https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-1303
84. Wang, Z., Qiao, X., Chen, J., Li, L., Zhang, H., Ding, J., & Chen, H. (2024). Exploring and evaluating the index for interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation detection. The Electronic Library, 42(4), 536-552. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2023-0141
85. Wechtler, H., Marodin, J.K., & Lehtonen, M.J. (2024). Systematic literature review on networks of innovative teams: Current trends and future research avenues. European Management Journal, 42(6), 968-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.08.007
86. West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Sage.
87. Wolf, E.J., Harrington, K.M., Clark, S.L., & Miller, M.W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
88. Xu, H., Dong, C., Yang, Y., & Sun, H. (2022). Developing a professional competence framework for the master of nursing specialist degree program in China: A modified Delphi study. Nurse Education Today, 118, Article 105524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105524
89. Zhou, B., & Zhou, M. (2019). Design for the evaluation system of interdisciplinary innovation capability based on bibliometrics. In T-H. Meen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Computation, Communication and Engineering (pp. 75–78). International Institute of Knowledge Innovation and Invention. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCE48422.2019.9010895