• Geanina Havârneanu Al. I. Cuza University of Iași, Romania, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Education Sciences



developmental evaluation, table of specifications, difficulty coefficient, discrimination coefficient, qualities of a standardized test


This paper aims to analyses the architecture of a longitudinal assessment tool used in a strategic project to develop mathematical creativity involving ex-ante, in itenere, and the ex-post assessment sessions.

This analysis envisages the curriculum vision of the creativity test, the teleological configuration, the types of competencies to achieve, and the operational objectives of the evaluation. The matrix explaining the operational objectives with the objectives of the creativity test, design, pretesting, and the statement of each item is discussed. The table explaining correspondence between items and the objectives of the scale are elaborated with the correction scheme and the grading scale. The difficulty and discrimination coefficient for each item are calculated, and the evaluation criteria of the overall qualities (objectivity, applicability, fidelity, and validity) is explained.


Albrecht, K. (2008). Inteligenţa practică. [Practical intelligence]. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Curtea Veche.

Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing. New York, US: Mac Millian Publish, Co., Inc.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D.R. (eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, US: Longman.

Archer, E. (2017). The Assessment Purpose Triangle: Balancing the Purposes of Educational Assessment. Frontiers in Education. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media SA. DOI:

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Taxonomie des objectives pedagogiques. Domaine cognitive. [Taxonomy of educational objectives. Cognitive domain]. Montreal Lavalle, Canada: Education Nouvelle.

Burger, D. (2000). Assessment and Accountability. PREL Briefing Paper. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Honolulu, US: HI. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Davis, G. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.

Dick, W., Carey, L. M. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. New York, US: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1011–1026.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, Maryland; US: University Park Press.

Gliner, A. J., Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. New Jersey, US: Routledge, 265-315.

Greeno, J., Hall, R. (1997). Practicing Representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.

Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. DOI:

Guilford, J. P. et. al. (1951). A factor analytic study of creative thinking abilities. Psychometric Monograph, 5.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York, US: McGraw Hill, 213-217.

Havârneanu, G. (2012) Standardized Educational Test for Diagnose the Development Level of Creative Mathematical Thinking Qualities. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 1-7.

Ho, S. B. (2016). Introduction in Principles of Noology. Socio-Affective Computing, 3.

Isaksen, S., Treffinger, D. (1985). Creative Problem Solving: The Basic Course. Buffalo, New York, US: Bearly Limited.

Lebrun, N., Berthelot, S. (1994). Plan pédagogique: Une démarche systématique de planification de l’enseignement. [Instructional plan: A systematic approach to planning instruction]. Saint-Hyacinthe, Bruxelles, Belgium: Éditions Nouvelles, De Boeck Université.

Lord, F.M. (1952). The Relationship of the Reliability of Multiple-Choice Test to the Distribution of Item Difficulties. Psychometrika, 18, 181-194.

Lowenfeld, V., Beittel, K. R. (1959). Interdisciplinary criteria of creativity in the arts and sciences: A progress report. Research in art Education. NAEA Yearbook, 9, 35-44.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46.

Mager, R. F. (1997). Comment definir les objectifs pedagogiques? [How to define the educational objectives?]. Paris, France: Bordas.

Malara, N.A., Navarra G. (2003). Influences of a Procedural Vision of Arithmetic in Algebra Learning. Working Group 2 - Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Bellaria, Italy.

Massell, D., Kirst, M., Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states. Brunswick, New York, US: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

National Research Council (2003). Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning: Bridging the gap between large-scale and classroom assessment. Workshop report. Washington, D.C, US: The National Academies Press.

Patton, M. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, US: Guilford.

Petrovici, C., Havârneanu, G. (2015). An Educational Program of Mathematical creativity. Acta Didactica Napocensia. 8(1): 13-20.

Pressley, M., Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. New Jersey, US: Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.). Semantic information processing. Cambridge, Boston, US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2.1, 227-270.

Roback, A. A. (Ed.) (1955). Present-day psychology. New York, US: Philosophical Library.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of Evaluation, in R. Tyler, R. Gagné, M. Scriven (Eds.). Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation. 1. Chicago, US: Rand McNally, 39-83.

Székely, D. L. (1950). Metarelation Und Kalkülengenetik, in Synthese, 8(3/5), 134-147. Fifth International Significal Summer Conference / Cinquieme Conference d'Ete Internationale de Linguistique Psychologique, Springer,

Shannon, A. (1999). Keeping Score. Assessment in Practice. Washington, D.C., US: National Academy Press.

Tardif, J. (1992). Pour un enseignement stratégique - L’apport de la psychologie cognitive. [For strategic teaching - The contribution of cognitive psychology]. Montréal, Canada: Ed. Logique.

Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative Problem Solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review 7, 301–312.

Treffers, A. (1987). Three Dimensions-A Model of Goal and Theory Description in Mathematics Instruction. The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publ. Co.

Vîgotsky L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vîgotski. Problems of general psychology, 1. R. W. Rieber, A. S. Carton (еds.). New York, US: Plenum Press.




How to Cite