Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study

Serkan Aslan; Mehmet Ali Gökdemir

doi:10.63612/ijesp.1903627

Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

This study developed and validated a 19-item multidimensional scale to assess middle school students’ (Grades 5–8) disposition towards artistic thinking in visual arts education within a developmentally appropriate and domain-specific framework. Addressing the limited availability of such instruments, the study aimed to provide a theoretically grounded and practically useful tool for research and instructional evaluation purposes. Nine experts reviewed the initial pool of 28 items, yielding strong content-related evidence (CVR = .667–1.000; CVI = .988). Evidence pertaining to the response processes of 50 students indicated that the items were generally comprehensible (item-level indices = .85–1.00; overall index = .92). To examine the internal structure, exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation was conducted on data from 499 students. The findings supported a three-factor structure explaining 38.232% of the extracted variance, with factor loadings ranging from .35 to .87. Confirmatory factor analysis on an independent sample of 389 students yielded acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 1.93; CFI = .914; TLI = .902; RMSEA = .049; SRMR = .051). Reliability and model-based validity findings generally supported the psychometric adequacy of the scale, and multi-group CFA indicated acceptable scalar invariance across genders. Overall, the artistic thinking disposition scale offers a valid, reliable, and developmentally sensitive measure of artistic thinking disposition.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Süleyman Demirel University Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler. The ethics approval was granted on 11.12.2025 under the protocol number E.1170303. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with institutional and national ethical standards, the Helsinki Declaration, and applicable regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

References

Akbulut, Y. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İdeal.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. University of California Press.
Aslantaş, S. (2014). Görsel sanatlar dersine yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2014(2), 185–196.
Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Berardi, A. M. (2025). Varieties of imagery and perception: The structure of task differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1568148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1568148

Blunch, N. J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modelling using IBM SPSS Statistics (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
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 behavioural research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Bosgraaf, L., Spreen, M., Pattiselanno, K., & van Hooren, S. (2020). Art therapy for psychosocial problems in children and adolescents: A systematic narrative review on art therapeutic means and forms of expression, therapist behaviour, supposed mechanisms of change, and effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 584685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584685
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
Burnett Heyes, S., Pictet, A., Mitchell, H., Raeder, S. M., Lau, J. Y. F., Holmes, E. A., & Blackwell, S. E. (2017). Mental imagery-based training to modify mood and cognitive bias in adolescents: Effects of valence and perspective. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9795-8
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheng, Y. (2025). From brushstrokes to brighter minds: A systematic review of the influence of out-of-school visual art activities on adolescents. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 18, 2401–2416. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S566460
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.
Dede, H. (2016). Öğrencilerin sanata karşı bakış açılarını ortaya koymaya yönelik bir tutum ölçeği. İdil, 5(25), 1559–1576. https://doi.org/10.7816/idil-05-25-13
DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Minton, Balch & Company.
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.
Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.4.3.272
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT Press.
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/10.1177/002224378101800104
Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity and reliability. Statistical Associates Publishing.
Garson, G. D. (2021). Data analytics for the social sciences: Applications in R. Routledge.
Garson, G. D. (2022). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: A social scientist’s toolkit. Routledge.
Gay, L. R., & Mills, G. E. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
Götz, K. O., Borisy, A. R., Lynn, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I. Construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(3), 795–802. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.49.3.795
Graciano, P., Lermen, F. H., Reichert, F. M., & Padula, A. D. (2023). The impact of risk-taking and creativity stimuli in education towards innovation: A systematic review and research agenda. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101220
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Irwing, F. P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (2018). The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale, and test development. Wiley.
Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford Press.
Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. MIT Press.
Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (2015). Handbook of test development. Routledge.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode—Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta Reinhart, R. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Özdamar, K. (2016). Ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Nisan Kitapevi.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
Roos, J. M., & Bauldry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 189). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
Schneider, V., & Rohmann, A. (2021). Arts in education: A systematic review of competency outcomes in quasi-experimental and experimental studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 623935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623935
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. Routledge.
Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264180789-en
Woo, J., & Lee, S.-Y. (2024). The moderating effect of creative metacognition on adolescents’ risk-taking in creative performance. Asia Pacific Education Review, 25(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-09927-8
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Wright, D. J., Scott, M. W., Kraeutner, S. N., Barhoun, P., Bertollo, M., Campbell, M. J., Waltzing, B. M., Dahm, S. F., Esselaar, M., Frank, C., Hardwick, R. M., Fuelscher, I., Marshall, B., Hodges, N. J., Hyde, C., & Holmes, P. S. (2024). An international estimate of the prevalence of differing visual imagery abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1454107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1454107
Yücetoker, İ. (2014). Sanat okuryazarlığı ölçeğinin hazırlanması ve geliştirilmesi. Sanat Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.7816/sed-02-01-06
Zhang, J., Du, X., Zhang, X., & Bai, X. (2023). The development of visual aesthetic sensitivity in students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1071487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1071487

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Curriculum and Instration (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Serkan Aslan ^*
0000-0001-8515-4233
Türkiye

Mehmet Ali Gökdemir
0000-0002-5100-5026
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

April 15, 2026

Publication Date

May 12, 2026

Submission Date

March 6, 2026

Acceptance Date

April 14, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 7 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.63612/ijesp.1903627

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA34KG29SF

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Aslan, S., & Gökdemir, M. A. (2026). Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy, 7(2), 193-226. https://doi.org/10.63612/ijesp.1903627

AMA

1.Aslan S, Gökdemir MA. Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study. IJESP. 2026;7(2):193-226. doi:10.63612/ijesp.1903627

Chicago

Aslan, Serkan, and Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. 2026. “Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study”. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy 7 (2): 193-226. https://doi.org/10.63612/ijesp.1903627.

EndNote

Aslan S, Gökdemir MA (May 1, 2026) Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy 7 2 193–226.

IEEE

[1]S. Aslan and M. A. Gökdemir, “Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study”, IJESP, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 193–226, May 2026, doi: 10.63612/ijesp.1903627.

ISNAD

Aslan, Serkan - Gökdemir, Mehmet Ali. “Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study”. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy 7/2 (May 1, 2026): 193-226. https://doi.org/10.63612/ijesp.1903627.

JAMA

1.Aslan S, Gökdemir MA. Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study. IJESP. 2026;7:193–226.

MLA

Aslan, Serkan, and Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. “Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study”. International Journal of Educational Studies and Policy, vol. 7, no. 2, May 2026, pp. 193-26, doi:10.63612/ijesp.1903627.

Vancouver

1.Serkan Aslan, Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. Artistic Thinking Disposition Scale for Middle School Students: A Validity and Reliability Study. IJESP. 2026 May 1;7(2):193-226. doi:10.63612/ijesp.1903627