Digital technologies have reshaped how individuals engage in creative activities, highlighting the need for updated and valid instruments to assess digital creative behavior. This study developed and examined the Digital Creative Behavior Instrument (DCBI) using two samples of university students in Taiwan (N = 300 and N = 412). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses generally supported a three-factor structure: (1) digital media creativity and engagement, (2) digital video editing and production, and (3) digital artwork and design. Overall, the pattern of fit indices (CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) suggested that the model fit was within a reasonable range for interpretation, although the TLI fell slightly below conventional benchmarks. Evidence of reliability and initial construct validity was observed. Openness to experience was positively associated with digital creative behavior, although the magnitude of the associations was small, providing preliminary support for criterion-related validity. The findings offer initial psychometric support for the DCBI and suggest directions for further refinement and validation in future research. This study contributes to creativity research and offers a basis for educators and researchers to assess digital creative engagement in contemporary contexts.
Abdulla AlabbasiA. M.ThompsonT. L.RuncoM. A.AlansariL. A.AyoubA. E. A. (2025). Gender differences in creative potential: A meta-analysis of mean differences and variability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 19(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000506
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2014 ed.). AERA.
5.
AslanE. (2024). Bite-sized language teaching in the digital wild: Relational pedagogy and micro-celebrity English teachers on Instagram. System, 121, Article 103238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103238
6.
BawackR. E.BonhoureE.KamdjougJ.GiannakisM. (2023). How social media live streams affect online buyers: A uses and gratification perspective. International Journal of Information and Management, 70, Article 102621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102621
7.
BereczkiE. O.KárpátiA. (2021). Technology-enhanced creativity: A multiple case study of digital technology-integration expert teachers’ beliefs and practices. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100791
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
10.
BrunoC. (2022). Digital creativity dimension: A new domain for creativity. In Creativity in the design process (Vol. 18, pp. 29–42). Springer Series in Design and Innovation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87258-8_3
CehS. M.BenedekM. (2021). Where to share? A systematic investigation of creative behavior on online platforms. Creativity: Theories–Research-Applications, 8(1), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.2478/ctra-2021-0008
13.
CehS. M.BenedekM. (2024). Reeling in stories: An investigation of creative behaviors and creativity-support on Instagram. Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(1), Article e653. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.653
14.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
15.
ChenX.HeJ.FanX. (2019). Relationships between openness to experience, cognitive flexibility, self-esteem, and creativity among bilingual college students in the U.S. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(1), 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1688247
16.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
17.
ChoiG. Y.Behm-MorawitzE. (2020). Discovering hidden digital producers: Understanding motivation and creativity in social media production. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000240
18.
CsikszentmihalyiM.SawyerK. (2014). Shifting the focus from individual to organizational creativity. In The systems model of creativity (pp. 67–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_6
19.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
DollingerS. J.UrbanK. K.JamesT. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_4
FloraD. B.CurranP. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
24.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
25.
FreemanB.PotenteS.RockV.McIverJ. (2015). Social media campaigns that make a difference: What can public health learn from the corporate sector and other social change marketers?Public Health Research & Practice, 25(2), Article e2521517. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2521517
26.
GlăveanuV. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Springer International Publishing.
HabibS.VogelT.AnliX.ThorneE. (2024). How does generative artificial intelligence impact student creativity?Journal of Creativity, 34(1), Article 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100072
29.
HairJ. F.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.BlackW. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice.
30.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (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
HoffmannJ.IvcevicZ.BrackettM. (2016). Creativity in the age of technology: Measuring the digital creativity of millennials. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162515
33.
HollandJ. L.RichardsJ. M. (1965). Academic and nonacademic accomplishment: Correlated or uncorrelated. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(4), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022402
34.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
35.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
36.
IvcevicZ.MayerJ. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902855259
37.
KapoorH.Reiter-PalmonR.KaufmanJ. C. (2021). Norming the muses: Establishing the psychometric properties of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(6), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211008334
38.
KaufmanJ. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by ethnicity and gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1065–1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1255
39.
KaufmanJ. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029751
40.
KaufmanJ. C. (2019). Self-assessments of creativity: Not deal, but better than you think. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000217
41.
KaufmanJ. C.BeghettoR. 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
42.
KaufmanJ. C.WaterstreetM. A.AilabouniH. S.WhitcombH. J.RoeA. K.RiggsM. (2009). Personality and self-perceptions of creativity across domains. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.29.3.c
43.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
44.
KozinetsR.PattersonA.AshmanR. (2017). Networks of desire: How technology increases our passion to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw061
LiY.ZhangY.CapraR. (2022). Analyzing information resources that support the creative process. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on human information interaction and retrieval (pp. 180–190). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505817
47.
LiteratI. (2019). Make, share, review, remix: Unpacking the impact of the internet on contemporary creativity. Convergence, 25(5–6), 1168–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517751391
48.
LiteratI.GlăveanuV. P. (2016). Same but different? Distributed creativity in the internet age. Creativity: Theories—Research—Applications, 3(2), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2016-0020
49.
LiteratI.GlăveanuV. P. (2018). Distributed creativity on the internet: A theoretical foundation for online creative participation. International Journal of Communication, 12, 893–908. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7401.
50.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
51.
McCraeR. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
52.
McKinnonD. W. (1975). IPAR’s contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity. In TaylorI. A.GetzelsJ. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 60–89). Routledge.
53.
NärvänenE.MesirantaN.SutinenU.MattilaM. (2018). Creativity, aesthetics, and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.202
54.
NguyenM.-H.JinR.HoangG.NguyenM.-H. T.NguyenP.-L.LeT.-T.LaV.-P.VuongQ.-H. (2023). Examining contributors to Vietnamese high school students’ digital creativity under the serendipity-mindsponge-3D knowledge management framework. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, Article 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101350
55.
Omran ZailuddinM. F. N.Nik HarunN. A.Abdul RahimH. A.KamaruzamanA. F.BerahimM. H.HarunM. H.IbrahimY. (2024). Redefining creative education: A case study analysis of AI in design courses. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2024-0019
56.
PluckerJ. A.BeghettoR. A.DowG. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3902_1
57.
RattenV. (2017). Social media innovations and creativity. In Revolution of innovation management (Vol. 1, pp. 199–220). Springer.
58.
RediM.O’HareN.SchifanellaR.TrevisiolM.JaimesA. (2014). 6 seconds of sound and vision: Creativity in micro-videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4272–4279). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.544
59.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP. É.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
60.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
StolakiA.EconomidesA. A. (2018). The creativity challenge game: An educational intervention for creativity enhancement with integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Computer and Education, 123, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.009
63.
TangC.MaoS.NaumannS. E.XingZ. (2022). Improving student creativity through digital products: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, Article 101032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032
64.
ThompsonE. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international English big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.013
65.
TorranceE. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–75). Cambridge University Press.
66.
VaterlausJ. M.WinterM. (2025). TikTok: an exploratory study of young adults’ uses and gratifications. The Social Science Journal, 62(3), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2021.1969882
67.
WatkinsM. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
68.
WegerifR. (2015). Technology and teaching thinking. In WegerifR.LiL.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 427–440). Routledge.
ZagaloN.BrancoP. (2015). Creativity in the digital age. Springer-Verlag.
72.
ZhangY.CapraR. (2019). Understanding how people use search to support their everyday creative tasks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR 2019) (pp. 153–162). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298936
73.
ZhouT. (2019). Examining users’ knowledge sharing behavior in online health communities. Data Technologies and Applications, 53(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-03-2019-0044
