Uzak Bağlantılar Testi: Norm ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Mevcut makalede sezgisel ve yaratıcı problem çözme becerilerini ölçmede kullanılan Uzak Bağlantılar Testi’nin (UBT) Türkçe norm ve güvenirlik çalışması rapor edilmiştir. UBT için 120 adet problem (üçlü kelime seti) oluşturulmuştur. Her bir UBT Problemi üç kelimeden oluşmakta ve çözüm için bu problem kelimelerinin her biriyle birlikte kullanıldığında anlamlı ikili kelime oluşturan (ortak) çözüm kelimesinin bulunması gerekmektedir. Testin güvenirliği için hesaplanan iç tutarlık katsayısının (Cronbach α = .87) oldukça yüksek ve anlamlı ol- duğu belirlenmiştir. Ek olarak UBT problemleri çözüm kelimesinin problem kelimesine olan konumuna göre (başta ya da sonda) iki farklı tipte düzenlenmiştir. Buna göre; Geriye Doğru UB Problemlerini çözüm kelimelerinin üçlü problem kelimelerinin önüne/başına geldiği prob- lemler; İleriye Doğru UB Problemlerini ise çözüm kelimelerinin üçlü problem kelimelerinin sonuna geldiği problemler oluşturmuştur. Problem yapısına bağlı olarak çözülme oranları incelendiğinde ileriye doğru UBT puanlarının geriye doğru UBT puanlarından anlamlı de- recede daha yüksek olduğu gözlenmiştir. Son olarak mevcut bulgular UBT puanları arasında cinsiyet açısından farklılık olmadığını göstermiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sezgisel problem çözme, yaratıcılık, Uzak Bağlantılar Testi, güvenirlik analizi

Remote Associates Test: Norms and Reliability Study

Öz

This paper reports norms and reliability study of The Turkish version of the Remote Asso- ciates Test (TRAT) which has been used to assess insight and creative problem solving abilities. 120 sets of words were constructed for the TRAT. Each one of 120 TRAT problems consists of three words and is solved with an answer word that connects all three words by forming word pairs used in everyday language. The reliability of the test, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (.87), was high and significant. In addition the TRAT problems were divided into two types according to the direction (forward or backward) of solution word’s associations with the three problem words: the Backward TRAT problems (the solution word was prefix to all three words of a problem) and the Forward TRAT problems (the solution word was suffix to all three words of a problem). An examination of performance on the two types of TRAT problems showed that the forward TRAT scores were much higher than the backward TRAT scores. Finally, the present finding also revealed that there was no gender difference on the TRAT. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Insightproblemsolving,creativity,RemoteAssociatesTest,reliablityanalaysis

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy, Ö. A. (1988). Atasözleri ve Deyimler Sözlüğü. İstanbul: İnkılâp Kitapevi Yayınları.
2. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liew, S. L., Dandekar, F. (2013). Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(4), 475-480.
3. Bolte, A., Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory and Cognition, 33 (7), 1248-1255.
4. Bowden, E.M., Jung-Beeman, M. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9, 435-440.
5. Bowden, E.M. ve Jung-Beeman, M. (2003a). Aha! Insight experience correlates withsolution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10,730-737.
6. Bowden, E.M. ve Jung-Beeman, M. (2003b). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments andComputers, 35, 634-639.
7. Bowden, E.M., Jung-Beeman, M. ve Fleck, J., Kounios, J. (2005). New approaches todemystifying insight. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 323-328.
8. Bowden, E.M. ve Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). Methods for investigating the neuralcomponents of insight. Methods, 42, 87-99.

9. Cinan, S. ve Doğan, A. (2013). Working memory, mental prospection, time orientation, and cognitive insight. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(3), 2013, 159-169.
10. Cinan, S., Özen G. ve Hampshire, A. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis on separability of planning and insight constructs. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 7-23.
11. Davies, S.P. (2005). Planning and problem solving in well-defined domains. Morris R. ve Ward, G. (Eds.): The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. (s. 3351). Hove:Psychology Press.
12. Gonen-Yaacovi, G., de Souza, L. C., Levy, R., Urbanski, M., Josse, G. ve Volle, E. (2013). Rostral and caudal prefrontal contribution to creativity: A meta-analysis of functional imaging data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 465.
13. Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E.M., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J.L., Arambel-Liu, S.,Greenblatt, R., Reber, P.J. ve Kounios, J. (2004). Neural activity when people solveverbal problems with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500-510.
14. Kahana, M.J. (2002). Associative symmetry and memory theory. Memory and Cognition, 30, 823-840.
15. Kershaw, T.C. ve Ohlsson, S. (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 3-13.
16. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S. Haider, H. ve Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1534-1555.
17. Koblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Raney, G.E. (2001). An eye movement study of problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1000-1009.
18. MacGregor, J.N., Ormerod, T.C., Chronicle, E.P. (2001). Information-processing and insight: A process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 176-201.
19. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.
20. Ormerod, T.C. (2005). Planning and ill-defined problems. Morris R. Ve Ward, G. (Eds.): The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. (s. 53-70). Hove: Psychology Press.
21. Rehani, M., Caplan, J.B. (2011). Interference and the representation of order within associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1409-1429.
22. Smith, K.A., Huber, D.E. ve Vul, E. (2013). Multiply-constrained semantic search in the Remote Associates Test. Cognition, 128, 64-75.
23. Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK). (2008). Yazım Kılavuzu. Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
24. Ward, G., Morris, R. (2005). Introduction to the psychology of planning. Morris R. ve Ward, G. (Eds.): The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. (s. 1-34) Hove: Psychology Press.