ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Measuring scientific creative thinking: development and validation of a process-oriented instrument.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific creative thinking (SCT) is a critical cognitive process that drives scientific discovery and innovation. To address the limitations of existing assessment tools in capturing its multi-stage, domain-specific nature, this study developed and validated the Scientific Creative Thinking Scale (SCTS). Grounded in an integrative psychological framework, the SCTS combines explicit indicators of divergent thinking with implicit theories of within-domain appropriateness. The scale employs three open-ended tasks based on real-world scientific scenarios to systematically assess the three core stages of SCT: problem identification, hypothesis construction, and experimental verification. Using a two-stage independent sample design with 401 tenth-grade students, the scale was rigorously validated. Exploratory factor analysis (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.