Understanding and Measuring Creative Thinking in Leaders

192 THE 71F ADVANTAGEDescriptive Measures and NormsDescriptive statistics for the openness scales as measured separatelyby the mini-markers and IPIP–NEO are presented in table 8–9,with histograms for the two scales shown respectively in figures 8–1 and8–2. Recall that for both the MM and the IPIP–NEO, the raw additivescores were rescaled to the original item metric (that is, divided by thenumber of included items) for ease of interpretation. It is also useful tokeep in mind that the midpoint of the MM scales is 5.0 on a 1.0 to 9.0scale, with scores less than 5.0 indicating relatively increasing degrees ofreported inaccuracy (that is, slightly, moderately, very, and extremely),and those above 5.0 indicating the same degrees of relative accuracy forthe openness adjective set. Regarding the IPIP–NEO scales, the midpointis 3.0 on a 1.0 to 5.0 scale, with scores below the midpoint representingrelative inaccuracy (moderately and very), and those above 3.0 the samedegrees of relative accuracy with respect to the openness set of phrases.Table 8–9. Descriptive Statistics for Openness MeasuresMini-markersIPIP–NEOOpennessOpennessValid N 289 Valid N 234Missing 3 Missing 58Mean 6.37976 Mean 3.1051Median 6.50000 Median 3.0833Standard Deviation 1.120520 Standard Deviation .44287Skewness -.409 Skewness .106Kurtosis -.152 Kurtosis .422The two openness scales give us very disparate pictures of the populationdistributions across instruments. While both mean scores areabove their scale midpoints, for the IPIP–NEO scale this is just barelythe case (mean = 3.11), while for the mini-marker, this is significantlyso (mean = 6.38). The MM scale yields 85.8 percent above the midpoint,compared to just 56.8 percent on the IPIP–NEO. On the high endof these scales (above 7.0 and 4.0), the percentages are 29.8 percent and3.8 percent, respectively. The MM openness scale is far more negatively