README file for [DATASET NAME].


General Information:
1. Title of dataset.
Dataset for 'Exploring the effects of age, gender and school setting on children’s creative thinking skills'

2. Date of deposit.
23/06/20

3. PI / Author (or equivalent)
Erik Gustafsson

4. Project 
Exploring the effects of age, gender and school setting on children’s creative thinking skills

5. Funding information.
Researcher's Yearly Research Fund

6. Data collection information:
i) Date/time period of collection 2017-2018
ii) Geographic location of collection (if applicable)
St Swithun's Catholic Primary School. Portsmouth, Southsea

Sharing & Access (only relevant if sharing data)
7. State licence(s) for use.
CC BY

8. Any restrictions. 
NA

9. Request for Access contact (if applicable).
NA

10. Information on outputs/publications that cite or use the data.
NA


Data Overview:
11. List data files.
Raw Data
Data for analyses
Originality scores
Flexibility scores

12. Explain any relationships between files.
Data for analyses were obtained via a pivot table from the raw data file (Information are transparent by clicking on the pivot table
Data for originality anbd flexiblity scores were also obtain via a pivot table from the raw data file (Information are transparent by clicking on the pivot table)

13. For each file:
i) Description of content
The excel files contain four onglets corresponding to the four datafiles
ii) If not embedded within the file(s) provide variable metadata, missing data data definitions etc.
NA
iii) Details of any specialised formats or abbreviations
NA

Methodological Information:
14. Link to methodology description / or brief description of method.

Participants
A total number of 111 participants were tested ranging from the age of 7 to 11 years old (M= 8.73 years, SD=1.52).  They were divided in two groups “7-8 years olds” (N=48) and “9-11 years-old” (N=63).  Of these participants, 54 were girls and 57 were boys.  All participants were children currently studying in primary school from Years 4 to 6, equivalent to US grades 3-5.  This research was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of XXXXXX (2017-063). 
Design
Participants from each class were randomly divided into two groups.  One group of students took part in the experiment in the school art room and the second group of students were in their classroom.  Participants in the classroom condition sat at tables as they would on a day-to-day basis, whereas participants in the art room stood behind a worktop, in the same manner they do during art class.  The art room was decorated with painted foam shapes and buntings to add colour (Figure 1). 
Each condition involved three tasks: two drawing and one verbal (written) task aiming to measure divergent thinking.  To ensure all measures were controlled a stopwatch and standardised instructions were used.  The verbal task (Ping Pong task) was conducted in the middle of the two drawing tasks to ensure a break between the similar tasks, and to prevent boredom. 
Materials
Davis (1995) suggested that when testing creativity two tests should be used in order to minimise false negatives, which may arise when measuring creativity with a single test.  Thus, two tests of this manner were used, the Urban and Jellens’ (1996) Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP), and the Guildford’s Alternative Uses Task (1967). 
In the TCT-DP test each participant was given two drawings to complete.  The TCT-DP Manual by Urban & Jellen (1996) was used to conduct and code the drawings.  For the Guildford’s Alternative Uses Task, a Ping Pong ball was used.  Each participant had to write down the different uses this ball could have.  
Procedure
Prior to the experiment, an opt-out informed consent form was sent home by the school to the parents.  Attached to this was the participant information sheet and a cover sheet, provided by the school.  This was sent out two weeks before conducting the experiments providing enough time for the parents to withdraw their child if they wished. 
During the experiment, participants were seated around tables ensuring there was space between each child to avoid copying.  Due to school policy and the children’s comfort a teaching assistant was present in the room during the experiment.  She was instructed only to step in if any child displayed disruptive behaviour.  Pencils were provided, with no colour on the reverse end.  Participants were then given Drawing A and instructed to write their age and gender at the top.  Then, they received the following instructions: “In front of you is an incomplete drawing.  The artist who started it was interrupted before he or she was able to finish it.  I would like you to finish it off.  You are allowed to draw anything you wish and nothing you do is wrong.  Everything you put on the paper is correct.  If you know a name or theme for your drawing please write it above your drawing.  Do not worry about the time, but we do not have a whole hour to finish it.  You are only allowed to use the pencil provided in front of you.  When you do finish it just raise your hand, so that I can take it away.  Do you have any questions?”
As the participants in the Classroom setting asked more questions to reassure themselves it was “correct”, we followed the procedure demonstrated in the TCT-DP manual.  They were told “Nothing you do is wrong, everything you put on the paper is correct”.  Participants then began the task and as each one finished, their drawing was collected and their time of finish was marked at the top.  Participants were cut off at a 15-minute mark if they still had not finished.  
Following this, the children participated in the ping pong ball task.  In the Art room, participants were given an A5 sheet of plain paper and those in the Classroom were given an A5 sheet of lined paper, to correspond with the settings.  The following verbal instructions were given: “Imagine you have a ping pong ball in front of you.  I want you to write down different ways in which you could use it other than playing ping pong? You can write ten at most but if you can only think of one or two then that is ok.  If you cannot think of any that is fine too. ”
Participants were given up to 5 minutes to complete this task, and sheets were collected, and Drawing B was given.  The same method and instructions for Drawing A was then repeated for Drawing B.   
Coding
Guildford’s Alternative Uses Task (Guilford, 1967) was used to code the results from the ping pong ball task.  The following criteria were used: Fluency, Originality, Flexibility and Elaboration.  Fluency marks were given for every answer written on the sheet with a cut-off point at ten points.  For originality, each answer was compared to the total amount of answers from the people tested, answers given by 5% were given one point and answers given by only 1% showed uniqueness, awarding them two points.  Since higher fluency artificially increase the originality, we used the corrective calculation for originality (originality = originality/fluency).  Regarding flexibility, one point was given for each different types of categories.  Points were awarded for elaboration based on the amount of detail given in an answer; for example "wrap it up" = 0 whereas "wrap it up in a lindt wrapper" = 1 (one point for the detail about lindt paper), and "wrap it up in a lindt wrapper to prank your mum” = 2 (one additional point for further detail about the hidden goal). 
The drawing tasks were coded to obtain a score for each child.  Coding followed the guidelines provided by TCT-DP manual, ensuring everything was standardised (Urban & Jellen, 1996).  To ensure all scores were given in the correct manner a reliability test was conducted.  In this, ten drawings were given to an assistant researcher so that they could mark them using the TCT-DP criteria.  An inter-observer reliability test was conducted showing r = 0.899, suggesting high reliability for the markings of the scores. 
Data Analysis
Univariate factorial Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted on the TCT-DP scores and on the four variables of Ping Pong task (Fluency, Originality, Flexibility and Elaboration).  Due to these five calculations on the same data, we lowered the α-value using the Bonferroni method (α’= 0.05/5= 0.01).  Following the convention, we considered as tendencies p-values equal to twice the α’-value (i.e. 0.02).  The main effects of “condition”, “gender”, “age” and the diverse two-way interactions were included.  


15. Describe any quality assurance procedures.
NA

16. Any specific information required to interpret/use use the data e.g. specific instrumentation/software information.
We followed the guidance provided by Guilford's Alternative Uses Task http://curtbonk.com/bobweb/r546/modules/creativity/creativity_tests/guilford_uses_task.html.  
“Scoring is comprised of four components:
1.	Originality - each response it compared to the total amount of responses from all of the people you gave the test to. Reponses that were given by only 5% of your group are unusual (1 point), responses that were given by only 1% of your group are unique - 2 points). Total all the point. Higher scores indicate creativity*
2.	Fluency - total. Just add up all the responses. In this example it is 6.
3.	Flexibility - or different categories. In this case there are five different categories (weapon and hit sister are from the same general idea of weapon)
4.	Elaboration - amount of detail (for Example "a doorstop" = 0 whereas "a door stop to prevent a door slamming shut in a strong wind" = 2 (one for explanation of door slamming, two for further detail about the wind).
*You might have noticed that the higher fluency the higher the originality (if you did "good for you!") This is a contamination problem and can be corrected by using a corrective calculation for originality (originality = originality/fluency).”