Tokuyoshi，Y. （2016）. Development of an intervention program based on Creative Problem Solving Coaching (CPSC) in the Creative Flow Scale in Skills and Self-efficacy the 32 st International Congress of Psychology

1. Development of an intervention
program based on Creative Problem
Solving Coaching (CPSC) in the
Creative Flow Scale in Skills and
Self-efficacy
Yoga TOKUYOSHI
31st International Congress of Psychology (ICP2016)
Tuesday, July 26 2016

2. 【Objective】
Recently, the Intervention studies of
Coaching have increased.
However, there have been few studies
that focus and evaluate an intervention
program of the Creative Coaching based
on Psychology. This study focuses and
reports on the development and
evaluation of a short intervention
program of Creative Problem Solving
Coaching based on Psychology.

3. September, 2013 Tokyo and Sendai in Japan
This Study was conducted to assess the effect
of the short intervention program using a semi-
structured interview, a self-report questionnaires
based on the CREATIVE model
(Tokuyoshi et al., 2014).

4. ■CFS was developed for evaluation of
the Creative Skills and Self –efficacy at necessitates
an approach based on a Creativity and Psychology.
【12 items with 5-point Likert scale. 2 subscales】
◆【Creative Skills】： 7 items
(e.g., “I feel that I have skills to create something.”)
◆【Creative Self-efficacy】 : 5 items
(e.g., “I feel that I have a confidence of Creativity.”)
Creative Flow Scale in Skills and Self-
Efficacy (CFS) (Tokuyoshi, 2016)
【Material】1: Scale

5. CFS was developed on
Creative Flow model
Creative Self –efficacy
【High】
Creative
Skill
【High】
•This Creative flow
model is hypothesized
that the person who has
skills and self-efficacy of
Creativity will be able to
demonstrate a high
performance in Creativity.
Venture
Creativ
e Flow
Apathy Wasteful
(Only Skill)
(Only Self-efficacy)

6. Creative Flow Scale in Skills and Self efficacy
Item I feel that … F1 F2 Hi Dsc
Q1：I can imagine some new things to add or put
something together.
.74 .05 .55 2.7
Q2：I can imagine some new things making
modifications or applying.
.85 -.12 .56 2.9
Q3：I can imagine some new things using new
methods.
.73 .05 .58 2.8
Q4： I can imagine some new things making it
simple.
.54 .05 .45 1.7
Q5： I can imagine some new things changing
viewpoints.
.72 -.05 .55 2.4
Q6： I can imagine some new things using new
tools.
.58 .06 .50 1.8
Q7： I can imagine some new things using
something from other domains.
.79 -.06 .57 2.8
Q8： I have the ability to challenge myself to new
things.
.05 .77 .62 3.0
Q9： I want to challenge myself to new things. .17 .51 .51 1.7
Q10： I can carry out new things. -.12 .95 .64 3.6
Q11： I can imagine various ideas. .24 .54 .55 2.2
Q12： I am ready to begin new things. -.08 .68 .52 1.7

7. “Creative Skills” Factor was
based on CREATIVE Model
(Tokuyoshi et al.,2014)
C: Curiosity Purpose or Concept
R: Research, Resources & Reframe
E: Expand or Eliminate
A: Adapt, Attach, Apply to combine
T: Technique or Tool
I : Import from different fields or cultures
V: Venture and Preparation
E: Evaluation
※Applying of Creative Problem Solving, Cognitive Behavioural
and Solution focused approach

8. Interview Sheet -CREATIVE based on
Creative Problem Solving Coaching
(Tokuyoshi, Iwasaki & Palmer, 2014)
【Material】2 : Work sheet of Coaching

9. Interview Sheet of the CREATIVE
We made an Interview Sheet of
Creative Problem Solving Coaching.
Applying the CREATIVE model （Tokuyoshi et al., 2014）.
◆What is the difference between this Interview sheet
and Practice model?
IS-CREATIVE worksheet
(1)It is used within one coaching session.
(2)The imagery technique was added to run a simulation.
(3) The Cognitive behavioural and Solution focused
approach (Grant et al., 2013) concept was added.
(4) The evaluation of Self-efficacy of Creative Problem
Solving Coaching was added.

10. 【Method of the experiment 】
Participants (N=25) were randomly
assigned to Intervention and Control group.
Conditions of the intervention
◆Intervention Group filled out the interview
sheet and then was interviewed by the Coach.
◆Control Group did not do anything
during the intervention.
The effect of the intervention was
assessed with Creative Flow Scale by
comparing pre- and post-intervention scores.

11. Pre-Test
◆Intervention Group
(N=15)
1.Educated about the creativity.
Filled out the Interview Sheet-
CREATIVE.
2.Practice of Coaching using
Interview Sheet-CREATIVE.
Post-Test
【Questionnaire】
Creative Flow Scale
In Skills and Self
efficacy (CFS)
【Questionnaire】
Creative Flow Scale
Figure Flow chart of this study.
◆Control Group
(N=10)
Main Subject
Random assignment (RCT)
◆N=25
Mean age=39.5(SD=12.5)
◆Data analysis
1: ANCOVA:
Post-test (Bound variables), Pre-test (Covariate), 2 conditions（Fixed Factor）
2: Effect Size (Cohen’s d) ：It was derived from & Intervention phase (Pre, Post)

12. Result N=25, Mean age=39.5(SD=12.5)
◆Pre data :
◆Anova between the pre total score of CFS and 2 conditions:
F(1, 23)=10.4, p < .01 (significance)
◆Anova between the pre total score of CFS in low
score group and 2 conditions
F(1, 13)=2.1, n.s.(No significance)
Condition Ｎ
Intervention 15
Control 10
considering preliminary survey in pre-test.

13. Results of the total score of CFS
Control
（N=10）
Intervention
（N=15）
CFS Pre Post d Pre Post d F
CFS
Total
M 43.0 42.8 -.04 48.2 50.9 .51 12.4**
SD 5.0 5.1 5.8 4.9
Creative
Skills
M 26.0 26.3 .09 29.1 30.6 .43 5.3*
SD 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.1
Self efficacy
of Creativity
M 17.0 16.5 -.14 19.1 20.3 .54 15.3***
SD 3.7 3.3 2.6 2.0
ANCOVA

14. CFS Total Score
43
48
43
51
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Control Intervention
TotalscoreofCFS
Pre Post
d=.51, p<.01
Control < Intervention** p <.01

15. Results of the CFS in Low
Control Intervention
CFS Pre Post d Pre Post d F
CFS
Total
M 41.0 40.8 -.09 43.1 2.6 1.49 13.4＊＊
SD 3.0 2.9 47.3 2.9
Creative
Skills
M 25.0 25.3 .20 25.8 28.3 1.40 6.8＊
SD 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.1
Self efficacy
of Creativity
M 26.3 26.6 .07 26.6 28.3 .85 2.0
SD 4.2 4.2 2.1 1.9
ANCOVA

16. CFS Total Score of Low Group (pre score)
41
43
41
47
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
Control InterventionPre Post
Control(N=8)<Intervention(N=7)** p <.01
d=1.49, p<.05
Considering for a ceiling effect

17. Discussion
■On the part of Coachee, The scores of CFS
and CFS Subscales were statistically
significant.
【Middle effect】Total Score of CFS
【High effect】Total Score of CFS in low group.
■However, it will be necessary to conduct a
psychological experiment based on Creativity.
(Ex: Using Creativity Methods)

18. Main Reference
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). Flow: The Psychology of
Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.
• Tokuyoshi，Y, Iwasaki,S, & Palmer,S. (2013). Development of
an Interview Sheet based on the CREATIVE model for Coaching
Psychology Practice. Coaching Psychology International, 7(1),
4-10.

19. The Creative Flow in Skills and Efficacy Scale (Tokuyoshi,Y., 2016)
Please rate the following statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1: Strongly Disagree 2: Disagree 3: Neutral 4: Agree 5: Strongly Agree
I feel that...
＿＿Q1： I can imagine some new things to add or put something together.
＿＿Q2： I can imagine some new things making modifications or applying.
＿＿Q3： I can imagine some new things using new methods.
＿＿Q4： I can imagine some new things making it simple.
＿＿Q5： I can imagine some new things changing viewpoints.
＿＿Q6： I can imagine some new things using new tools.
＿＿Q7： I can imagine some new things using something from other domains.
＿＿Q8： I have the ability to challenge myself to new things.
＿＿Q9： I want to challenge myself to new things.
＿＿Q10：I can carry out new things.
＿＿Q11：I can imagine various ideas.
＿＿Q12：I am ready to begin new things.
■Total Score （ ） ■Creative Skills （ ） ■Creative Self-efficacy （ ）
Factor M SD α Ht
CFS All （Q01-12） 46.2 9.4 .90 .48
Creative Skills （Q01-Q07） 28.7 5.5 .87 .54
Creative Self-efficacy （Q08-Q12） 17.5 4.9 .84 .57