DEVELOPING AND VALIDATING A SECOND-ORDER REFLECTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY COMPETENCE IN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: A DELPHI-SEM MIXED-METHODS APPROACH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.5885Keywords:
Scientific Creativity Competence, Second-Order Reflective Model, Delphi Method, PLS-SEM, CB-SEM, STEM EducationAbstract
Background and Purpose: Scientific creativity competence (SCC) is recognized as a core higher-order competence in contemporary science education, yet validated frameworks that specify observable behavioral indicators within culturally situated, physics-based STEM learning contexts remain underdeveloped. The present study aimed to develop and validate a second-order reflective SCC measurement framework for Vietnamese upper-secondary students. Design and Methods: A sequential mixed-methods design was employed across five procedural steps: (1) systematic bibliometric synthesis of 690 Scopus-indexed publications (1960-2026); (2) second-order reflective model specification; (3) two-round Delphi expert consultation (Round 1: N = 42; Round 2: N = 38, retention rate 90.5%); (4) PLS-SEM exploratory validation (n = 300, SmartPLS 4, 5,000 bootstrap resamples); and (5) CB-SEM confirmatory validation incorporating EFA and CFA (n = 1,200, SPSS 27 and AMOS 27). Quantitative participants were Grade 10 students recruited from schools in Ho Chi Minh City and Gia Lai Province via stratified sampling. Results: The proposed framework - comprising four first-order components (PRB: problem recognition; IDE: idea generation; DES: solution design; EVA: solution evaluation) operationalized through 16 behavioral indicators - achieved expert consensus rates of 86.8%-92.1% in Round 2. PLS-SEM confirmed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.752-0.792; CR = 0.843-0.865), convergent validity (AVE = 0.575-0.617), and discriminant validity (HTMT = 0.605-0.771). CFA demonstrated excellent model fit - χ²(100) = 97.892, p = 0.541; χ²/df = 0.979; GFI = 0.990; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.000; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.017; PCLOSE = 1.000 - and confirmed the second-order reflective structure, with DES and PRB as the dominant reflections of SCC (β = 0.85; R² = 0.72), followed by IDE (β = 0.74) and EVA (β = 0.71). All three research hypotheses were supported. Conclusions and Implications: The validated SCC framework constitutes, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first psychometrically rigorous second-order measurement model for scientific creativity competence developed and normed within the Vietnamese secondary education context. The five-step Delphi-SEM procedure offers a replicable protocol for competence framework development in educational measurement. The framework provides a theoretically grounded foundation for designing assessment instruments and SCC-targeted STEM learning sequences in Physics instruction at the upper-secondary level.
References
Aguilera, D., & Ortiz-Revilla, J. (2021). STEM vs. STEAM education and student creativity: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 11(7), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the Creative Scientific Ability Test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.001
Benedek, M., & Fink, A. (2019). Toward a neurocognitive framework of creative cognition: The role of memory, attention, and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.12.009
Communist Party Central Committee. (2013). Nghị quyết số 29-NQ/TW ngày 04/11/2013 về đổi mới căn bản, toàn diện giáo dục và đào tạo, đáp ứng yêu cầu công nghiệp hóa, hiện đại hóa trong điều kiện kinh tế thị trường định hướng xã hội chủ nghĩa và hội nhập quốc tế [Resolution No. 29-NQ/TW on fundamental and comprehensive educational reform]. Communist Party of Vietnam.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
Endacott, R., Pearson, M., & Clifton, S. (1999). Generating consensus for practice using the Delphi method: Practical considerations for nurse educators. Nurse Education Today, 19(7), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.1999.0366
Eyring, H. (1959). Scientific creativity. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 1–10). Wiley.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
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
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/376806
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2019). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839
Lucas, B. (2016). A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209205
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315–353). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông 2018 - Chương trình tổng thể [National General Education Curriculum 2018 - General programme]. Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam.
Pinar, A., Akçay, H., & Tüysüz, C. (2025). Effects of instructional interventions on scientific creativity in secondary science education: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10118-4
Prime Minister of Vietnam. (2021). Quyết định số 127/QĐ-TTg ngày 26/01/2021 phê duyệt Chiến lược quốc gia về nghiên cứu, phát triển và ứng dụng Trí tuệ nhân tạo đến năm 2030 [Decision No. 127/QĐ-TTg approving the National Strategy on Research, Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence to 2030]. Government of Vietnam.
Prime Minister of Vietnam. (2022). Quyết định số 411/QĐ-TTg ngày 31/3/2022 phê duyệt Chiến lược quốc gia phát triển kinh tế số và xã hội số đến năm 2025, định hướng đến năm 2030 [Decision No. 411/QĐ-TTg approving the National Strategy for Digital Economy and Digital Society to 2025, with orientation to 2030]. Government of Vietnam.
Saefan, J., Priyono, D., & Wibowo, S. W. (2026). STEM-integrated physics instruction and the development of scientific creativity in upper-secondary students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2891, Article 012042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2891/1/012042
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Sternberg, R. J., Glăveanu, V., Karami, S., Kaufman, J. C., Phillipson, S. N., & Preiss, D. D. (2020). Resource-based theory of creative contributions. Creativity Research Journal, 33(2–3), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1855321
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
Xu, W., Chen, G., Zhao, L., & Lian, Z. (2024). Development and validation of a comprehensive scientific creativity assessment for high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(4), 1102–1135. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21903
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0


