Use of a reference group in researching children’s views of psychotherapy in Malta

This paper explores the process and outcomes of a children’s reference group within the context of child psychotherapy research in residential care. The reference group was set up to consult children about the design of a research project which seeks to evoke, represent and understand children’s views of psychotherapy. No work to date has explored the experience of reference groups in the context of child psychotherapy in residential care in Malta. The paper contextualises the research within the literature on reference groups in child research, which identifies the potential of reference groups as a participative and co-reflexive activity which can inform research design. The paper critically examines the nature and conduct of the reference group by acknowledging the specific context of this work rather than assuming this is necessarily positive. It does so by specifying and evaluating the outcomes of the reference group in line with its aims. The paper draws on the recordings of the reference group meetings and reference group field notes taken by the researcher as key data which were thematically analysed. The main outcomes of the reference group include children’s contribution to the design of data collection methods especially in terms of not relying only on words during data collection. Children also identified key ethical issues from the point of view of young psychotherapy service users, especially in relation to issues of trust within a residential care context. Children also reviewed and appraised research information material. The reference group process drew from the researcher’s and participants’ contexts and contributed significantly to the researcher’s reflexive process especially in terms of acknowledging his power and positioning as an adult and his dual role as a practitioner/researcher.     

Nothing But Stereotypes? Negligible Sex Differences Across Creativity Measures in Science,Arts, and Sports Adolescent High Achievers

Previous research has focused on understanding when, why, and how sex differences in creativity occur, as results vary across samples, measures, and methodologies. In the current study we investigated sex differences in creativity among 984 high achieving adolescents in three expertise areas: Sciences, Arts, and Sports. Eight creativity indicators were analyzed: Alternative uses task (AUT) fluency; creative self-efficacy (CSE); intraindividual strengths (difference between CSE and AUT Fluency); five self-reported creativity scales: Self/everyday, scholarly, performance, mechanical/scientific, artistic. The results showed negligible sex differences ( = .01), with females performing better in AUT Fluency and males self-rating their CSE higher. No sex differences were found in self/everyday, scholarly and performance creativity. Males self-rated their mechanical/scientific creativity ( = .06) higher than females; while females self-rated their artistic creativity ( = .02) higher in comparison to males. Our results extend the existing literature by finding negligible sex differences in adolescent expert groups. However, some stereotypical differences emerged, for example, females with Sciences expertise rated their mechanical/scientific creativity lower than males with and even without Sciences expertise. Results call for further investigation into the links between sex differences, expertise, and specific creativity domains.