Establishing the validity and reliability of a modified tool for assessing innovative thinking of engineering students

References

• Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barak, M. and Usher, M. (2019). The innovation profile of nanotechnology team projects among face-to-face and online learners. Computers and Education, 137, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barak, M., Morad, S., and Ragonis, N. (2013). Students' innovative thinking and their perceptions about the ideal learning environment. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations. Kaohsiung, Taiwan September (pp. 111–125)
   Google Scholar
• Barak, M., Watted, A., and Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers and Education, 94, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., and Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research and Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233 – 255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Muffin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L.J., and Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting creativity and innovation in engineering education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9, 161–171. doi:10.1037/aca0000008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105- 123.
   Google Scholar
• Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., and Christensen, C. M. (2008). Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 317–338. doi:10.1002/sej.59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., and Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. and Cooksey, R. W. (1984). Procedures for assessing the validities of tests using the "known-groups" method. Applied Psychological Measurement 8(3), 295–305. doi:10.1177/014662168400800306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimberg, R. G. and Holaway, R. M. (2007). Examination of the known-groups validity of the Liebowitz social anxiety scale. Depression and Anxiety 24(7), 447–454. doi:10.1002/da.20277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, R. and Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9 –30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., and 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. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleysen, R. F., and Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a Multi-Dimensional Measure of Individual Innovative Behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284–96. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005660.
   Google Scholar
• Law, K.M.Y. and Geng, S. (2018). How innovativeness and handedness affect learning performance of engineering students? International Journal of Technology and Design Education. doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9462-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, T. D. (Ed.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, Vol. 1: Foundations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, R., and Jin, Z. (2016). Knowledge and innovation in emerging market multinationals: The expansion paradox. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1593–1597. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, P., Potocnik, K., and Fras, A. B. (2017). Determinants of students’ innovation in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1229–1243. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1087993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schar, M. F., Gilmartin, S. K., Rieken, E. M., Harris, A. M., and Sheppard, S. D. (2017). Innovation self-efficacy: A very brief measure for engineering students. Entrepreneurship and Engineering Innovation Division, 27, 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, M., and Werner, C. H. (2017). An interdisciplinary and intercultural approach to creativity and innovation: Evaluation of the EMCI ERASMUS intensive program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 268–278. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Technion Entrepreneurship and Innovation School (2018). Retrieved January 2018 from: http://int.technion.ac.il/academic-programs/summer-programs/entrepreneurship-innovation/
   Google Scholar
• Usher, M., and Barak, M. (2018). Peer assessment in a project-based engineering course: Comparing between on-campus and online learning environments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 745–759. doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1405238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watted, A., and Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11–20. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar