critical thinking skills self assessment

What is the Critical Thinking Test?

Critical thinking practice test, take a free practice critical thinking test, practice critical thinking test.

Updated November 16, 2023

The Critical Thinking Test is a comprehensive evaluation designed to assess individuals' cognitive capacities and analytical prowess.

This formal examination, often referred to as the critical thinking assessment, is a benchmark for those aiming to demonstrate their proficiency in discernment and problem-solving.

In addition, this evaluative tool meticulously gauges a range of skills, including logical reasoning, analytical thinking, and the ability to evaluate and synthesize information.

This article will embark on an exploration of the Critical Thinking Test, elucidating its intricacies and elucidating its paramount importance. We will dissect the essential skills it measures and clarify its significance in gauging one's intellectual aptitude.

We will examine examples of critical thinking questions, illuminating the challenging scenarios that candidates encounter prompting them to navigate the complexities of thought with finesse.

Before going ahead to take the critical thinking test, let's delve into the realm of preparation. This segment serves as a crucible for honing the skills assessed in the actual examination, offering candidates a chance to refine their analytical blades before facing the real challenge. Here are some skills that will help you with the critical thinking assessment: Logical Reasoning: The practice test meticulously evaluates your ability to deduce conclusions from given information, assess the validity of arguments, and recognize patterns in logic. Analytical Thinking: Prepare to dissect complex scenarios, identify key components, and synthesize information to draw insightful conclusions—a fundamental aspect of the critical thinking assessment. Problem-Solving Proficiency: Navigate through intricate problems that mirror real-world challenges, honing your capacity to approach issues systematically and derive effective solutions. What to Expect: The Critical Thinking Practice Test is crafted to mirror the format and complexity of the actual examination. Expect a series of scenarios, each accompanied by a set of questions that demand thoughtful analysis and logical deduction. These scenarios span diverse fields, from business and science to everyday scenarios, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of your critical thinking skills. Examples of Critical Thinking Questions Scenario: In a business context, analyze the potential impacts of a proposed strategy on both short-term profitability and long-term sustainability. Question: What factors would you consider in determining the viability of the proposed strategy, and how might it affect the company's overall success? Scenario: Evaluate conflicting scientific studies on a pressing environmental issue.

Question: Identify the key methodologies and data points in each study. How would you reconcile the disparities to form an informed, unbiased conclusion?

Why Practice Matters

Engaging in the Critical Thinking Practice Test familiarizes you with the test format and cultivates a mindset geared towards agile and astute reasoning. This preparatory phase allows you to refine your cognitive toolkit, ensuring you approach the assessment with confidence and finesse.

We'll navigate through specific examples as we proceed, offering insights into effective strategies for tackling critical thinking questions. Prepare to embark on a journey of intellectual sharpening, where each practice question refines your analytical prowess for the challenges ahead.

This is a practice critical thinking test.

The test consists of three questions .

After you have answered all the questions, you will be shown the correct answers and given full explanations.

Make sure you read and fully understand each question before answering. Work quickly, but don't rush. You cannot afford to make mistakes on a real test .

If you get a question wrong, make sure you find out why and learn how to answer this type of question in the future.

Six friends are seated in a restaurant across a rectangular table. There are three chairs on each side. Adam and Dorky do not have anyone sitting to their right and Clyde and Benjamin do not have anyone sitting to their left. Adam and Benjamin are not sitting on the same side of the table.

If Ethan is not sitting next to Dorky, who is seated immediately to the left of Felix?

You might also be interested in these other PRT articles:

15 Free Psychometric Test Questions and Answers

Critical Thinking test

By 123test team . Updated May 12, 2023

Critical Thinking test reviews

This Critical Thinking test measures your ability to think critically and draw logical conclusions based on written information. Critical Thinking tests are often used in job assessments in the legal sector to assess a candidate's analytical critical thinking skills. A well known example of a critical thinking test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal .

Need more practice?

Score higher on your critical thinking test.

The test comprises of the following five sections with a total of 10 questions:

Analysing Arguments
Assumptions
Interpreting Information

Instructions Critical Thinking test

Each question presents one or more paragraphs of text and a question about the information in the text. It's your job to figure out which of the options is the correct answer.

Below is a statement that is followed by an argument. You should consider this argument to be true. It is then up to you to determine whether the argument is strong or weak. Do not let your personal opinion about the statement play a role in your evaluation of the argument.

Statement: It would be good if people would eat vegetarian more often. Argument: No, because dairy also requires animals to be kept that will have to be eaten again later.

Is this a strong or weak argument?

Strong argument Weak argument

Statement: Germany should no longer use the euro as its currency Argument: No, because that means that the 10 billion Deutschmark that the introduction of the euro has cost is money thrown away.

Overfishing is the phenomenon that too much fish is caught in a certain area, which leads to the disappearance of the fish species in that area. This trend can only be reversed by means of catch reduction measures. These must therefore be introduced and enforced.

Assumption: The disappearance of fish species in areas of the oceans is undesirable.

Is the assumption made from the text?

Assumption is made Assumption is not made

As a company, we strive for satisfied customers. That's why from now on we're going to keep track of how quickly our help desk employees pick up the phone. Our goal is for that phone to ring for a maximum of 20 seconds.

Assumption: The company has tools or ways to measure how quickly help desk employees pick up the phone.

All reptiles lay eggs
All reptiles are vertebrates
All snakes are reptiles
All vertebrates have brains
Some reptiles hatch their eggs themselves
Most reptiles have two lungs
Many snakes only have one lung
Cobras are poisonous snakes
All reptiles are animals

Conclusion: Some snakes hatch their eggs themselves.

Does the conclusion follow the statements?

Conclusion follows Conclusion does not follow

(Continue with the statements from question 5.)

Conclusion: Some animals that lay eggs only have one lung.

In the famous 1971 Stanford experiment, 24 normal, healthy male students were randomly assigned as 'guards' (12) or 'prisoners' (12). The guards were given a uniform and instructed to keep order, but not to use force. The prisoners were given prison uniforms. Soon after the start of the experiment, the guards made up all kinds of sentences for the prisoners. Insurgents were shot down with a fire extinguisher and public undressing or solitary confinement was also a punishment. The aggression of the guards became stronger as the experiment progressed. At one point, the abuses took place at night, because the guards thought that the researchers were not watching. It turned out that some guards also had fun treating the prisoners very cruelly. For example, prisoners got a bag over their heads and were chained to their ankles. Originally, the experiment would last 14 days. However, after six days the experiment was stopped.

The students who took part in the research did not expect to react the way they did in such a situation.

To what extent is this conclusion true, based on the given text?

True Probably true More information required Probably false False

(Continue with the text from 'Stanford experiment' in question 7.)

The results of the experiment support the claim that every young man (or at least some young men) is capable of turning into a sadist fairly quickly.

A flag is a tribute to the nation and should therefore not be hung outside at night. Hoisting the flag therefore happens at sunrise, bringing it down at sunset. Only when a country flag is illuminated by spotlights on both sides, it may remain hanging after sunset. There is a simple rule of thumb for the time of bringing down the flag. This is the moment when there is no longer any visible difference between the individual colors of the flag.
A flag may not touch the ground.
On the Dutch flag, unless entitled to do so, no decorations or other additions should be made. Also the use of a flag purely for decoration should be avoided. However, flag cloth may be used for decoration - for example in the form of drapes.
The orange pennant is only used on birthdays of members of the Royal House and on King's Day. The orange pennant should be as long or slightly longer than the diagonal of the flag.

Conclusion: One can assume that no Dutch flag will fly at government buildings at night, unless it is illuminated by spotlights on both sides.

Does the conclusion follow, based on the given text?

(Continue with the text from 'Dutch flag protocol' in question 9.)

Conclusion: If the protocol is followed, the orange pennant will always be longer than the horizontal bands/stripes of the flag.

Please answer the questions below. Not all questions are required but it will help us improve this test.

My educational level is

-- please select -- primary school high school college university PhD other

Featured Articles
Report Card Comments
Needs Improvement Comments
Teacher's Lounge
New Teachers
Our Bloggers
Article Library
Featured Lessons
Every-Day Edits
Lesson Library
Emergency Sub Plans
Character Education
Lesson of the Day
5-Minute Lessons
Learning Games
Lesson Planning
Subjects Center
Teaching Grammar
Leadership Resources
Parent Newsletter Resources
Advice from School Leaders
Programs, Strategies and Events
Principal Toolbox
Administrator's Desk
Interview Questions
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers Observing Teachers
Tech Lesson Plans
Science, Math & Reading Games
Tech in the Classroom
Web Site Reviews
Creating a WebQuest
Digital Citizenship
All Online PD Courses
Child Development Courses
Reading and Writing Courses
Math & Science Courses
Classroom Technology Courses
A to Z Grant Writing Courses
Spanish in the Classroom Course
Classroom Management
Responsive Classroom
Dr. Ken Shore: Classroom Problem Solver
Worksheet Library
Highlights for Children
Venn Diagram Templates
Reading Games
Word Search Puzzles
Math Crossword Puzzles
Geography A to Z
Holidays & Special Days
Internet Scavenger Hunts
Student Certificates

Newsletter Sign Up

Search form

The power of reflection and self-assessment in student learning.

critical thinking skills self assessment

Learning is so much more than facts. Facts can be memorized and forgotten. But real learning stays with you for life. It involves developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and the capacity for self-improvement. Reflection and self-assessment are vital in deepening understanding, fostering growth, and enhancing student learning.

Reflection Involves Contemplation and Self-Analysis

Reflection is thinking deeply about one's experiences, actions, and thoughts. When students focus on these, they connect theory and practice, and their learning takes on a whole new direction. Through reflection, students can better understand the underlying concepts, ideas, and principles they have encountered, leading to more profound subject matter comprehension.

Try one-minute essays. At the end of a lesson, ask your students to write down their thoughts for one minute. What did they struggle with? What were they good at? The simple act of writing down their thoughts will start a deeper self-analysis process.

By reflecting on their thinking, students can recognize their own strengths and weaknesses, leading to more effective learning strategies and problem-solving skills. When students are given the time and wherewithal to reflect, they develop accountability for their own learning process.

Self-Assessment Follows Self-Reflection

Self-assessment is closely linked to reflection and involves students evaluating their learning and performance. It empowers students to take ownership of their education by actively participating in the evaluation process. Through self-assessment, students develop a deep sense of responsibility and accountability for their progress, contributing to intrinsic motivation and a growth mindset.

Within your grading rubric, allow your students to grade themselves. Did they feel like they gave their all? Could they have done better? Allowing your students the chance to be honest with their work will stimulate academic responsibility.

By examining their work, students can identify their strengths and weaknesses, enabling them to set realistic goals and develop strategies to improve their learning outcomes. Self-assessment also encourages students to take risks and embrace challenges, as they see these as opportunities for growth rather than failures.

Show them the path to continuous improvement, where students are not afraid to make mistakes but view them as valuable learning experiences.

Combine the Two to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

How often do we ask our students to think critically? We need to ask ourselves if they have developed those skills. Thankfully, one significant benefit of reflection and self-assessment is gaining critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking involves analyzing information, evaluating evidence, and making informed judgments. Through reflection, students are encouraged to question assumptions, challenge their own beliefs, and consider alternative perspectives.

By critically examining their experiences and knowledge, students can develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter and become more independent thinkers. Furthermore, they engage in higher-order thinking processes, such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. These skills are essential not only for academic success but also for lifelong learning and professional development.

Students Begin Looking at the Process, Rather than the Outcome

When students engage in reflection and self-assessment, they shift their focus from grades and external validation to the learning process. They begin to see challenges and setbacks as opportunities for growth and improvement rather than as indicators of failure. This mindset is a breeding ground for resilience, perseverance, and a love for learning.

Recently there has been a shift among high school seniors; they celebrate their college rejection letters, rejoicing in the fact that they put themselves out there and know their failure is only another opportunity for growth.

Students become more willing to take risks, seek feedback, and embrace new challenges, knowing their abilities can be developed over time. When students can reflect on their learning experiences, they develop a deeper connection to the material. They become active participants in their own education rather than passive recipients of information.

And that, as educators, makes our hearts soar!

Motivation and Engagement Come Through Reflection and Self-Assessment

By assessing their progress and setting goals, students become more motivated to strive for excellence and take responsibility for their learning outcomes. Reflection also provides students with a sense of purpose and meaning, as they can see the relevance and application to real-life situations. This intrinsic motivation is a powerful driver for sustained engagement and continuous improvement both in and out of the classroom.

As educators, creating opportunities for students to reflect on their learning experiences and assess their progress is crucial. By doing so, we equip them with the necessary skills and mindset to become lifelong learners who can confidently and purposefully navigate the world's complexities.

EW Lesson Plans

EW Professional Development

Ew worksheets.

top education news, lesson ideas, teaching tips and more!

No thanks, I don't need to stay current on what works in education!

SchoolNotes.com
The Educator's Network

A Model for the National Assessment of Higher Order Thinking
International Critical Thinking Essay Test
Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test
Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Sample Test

Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment

The purpose of assessment in instruction is improvement. The purpose of assessing instruction for critical thinking is improving the teaching of discipline-based thinking (historical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc.) It is to improve students’ abilities to think their way through content using disciplined skill in reasoning. The more particular we can be about what we want students to learn about critical thinking, the better we can devise instruction with that particular end in view.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking offers assessment instruments which share in the same general goal: to enable educators to gather evidence relevant to determining the extent to which instruction is teaching students to think critically (in the process of learning content). To this end, the Fellows of the Foundation recommend:

that academic institutions and units establish an oversight committee for critical thinking, and

that this oversight committee utilizes a combination of assessment instruments (the more the better) to generate incentives for faculty, by providing them with as much evidence as feasible of the actual state of instruction for critical thinking.

The following instruments are available to generate evidence relevant to critical thinking teaching and learning:

Course Evaluation Form : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students perceive faculty as fostering critical thinking in instruction (course by course). Machine-scoreable.

Online Critical Thinking Basic Concepts Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students understand the fundamental concepts embedded in critical thinking (and hence tests student readiness to think critically). Machine-scoreable.

Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students can read closely and write substantively (and hence tests students' abilities to read and write critically). Short-answer.

International Critical Thinking Essay Test : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students are able to analyze and assess excerpts from textbooks or professional writing. Short-answer.

Commission Study Protocol for Interviewing Faculty Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, critical thinking is being taught at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school. Based on the California Commission Study . Short-answer.

Protocol for Interviewing Faculty Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, critical thinking is being taught at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school. Short-answer.

Protocol for Interviewing Students Regarding Critical Thinking : Provides evidence of whether, and to what extent, students are learning to think critically at a college or university. Can be adapted for high school). Short-answer.

Criteria for Critical Thinking Assignments : Can be used by faculty in designing classroom assignments, or by administrators in assessing the extent to which faculty are fostering critical thinking.

Rubrics for Assessing Student Reasoning Abilities : A useful tool in assessing the extent to which students are reasoning well through course content.

All of the above assessment instruments can be used as part of pre- and post-assessment strategies to gauge development over various time periods.

Consequential Validity

All of the above assessment instruments, when used appropriately and graded accurately, should lead to a high degree of consequential validity. In other words, the use of the instruments should cause teachers to teach in such a way as to foster critical thinking in their various subjects. In this light, for students to perform well on the various instruments, teachers will need to design instruction so that students can perform well on them. Students cannot become skilled in critical thinking without learning (first) the concepts and principles that underlie critical thinking and (second) applying them in a variety of forms of thinking: historical thinking, sociological thinking, biological thinking, etc. Students cannot become skilled in analyzing and assessing reasoning without practicing it. However, when they have routine practice in paraphrasing, summarizing, analyzing, and assessing, they will develop skills of mind requisite to the art of thinking well within any subject or discipline, not to mention thinking well within the various domains of human life.

For full copies of this and many other critical thinking articles, books, videos, and more, join us at the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - the world's leading online community dedicated to critical thinking! Also featuring interactive learning activities, study groups, and even a social media component, this learning platform will change your conception of intellectual development.

Programs & Services
Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

Critical Thinking Inventories

Two instruments to assess critical thinking learning environments that were developed and validated by faculty and staff at the University of Louisville.

Quick Links to Resources:

Teaching Critical Thinking Inventory [PDF]
Learning Critical Thinking Inventory [PDF]
Sample CTI Feedback Report [PDF]
LCTI Survey Deployment Instructions [PDF]
Detailed Instructor FAQ [PDF]

“There has been a lot of value gained from using the critical thinking inventories. It helps faculty members compare their own perspectives on what is happening in the classroom with the perspectives of their students. It gives you a way to address issues in a course and decide what you want to tweak or change in your teaching.” -Alan Attaway Professor in Department of Accountancy, College of Business

What are the Critical Thinking Inventories?

The Critical Thinking Inventories (CTIs) are short, Likert-item instruments that assess a course learning environment as it relates to critical thinking skill-building. There are two separate instruments:

This inventory asks students to report their perception of critical thinking skill building as facilitated by their instructor in a specific course learning environment.
This instrument asks instructors to report on their facilitation of critical thinking skills within a specific course learning environment.

The LCTI and TCTI are validated instruments that provide you with a quick, anonymous way to self-assess the critical thinking characteristics of your course from your own perspective and the perspective of your students. The results from these inventories may be used by instructors or by academic programs to help inform how instructors can facilitate critical thinking skill building within a specific course and/or by the university to assess and improve the integration of critical thinking within the undergraduate educational environment.

Why were the CTIs developed?

Despite a nationwide emphasis on critical thinking in higher education by both higher education institutions and potential employees of college graduates for the last three decades, there are no standardized instruments available to assess actual or perceived abilities of instructors to develop students’ critical thinking skills (van Zyl, Bays, & Gilchrist, 2013). The CTIs were developed here at UofL to address this gap in the field and to support our institution’s self-identified goal of fostering our students’ critical thinking skills. Appropriate statistical analyses conducted at UofL showed the instruments to be both reliable and valid. You can read more about the development and validation of the CTIs in the following peer-reviewed article:

Van Zyl, M.A., Bays, C.L., & Gilchrist, C. (2013). Assessing teaching critical thinking with validated critical thinking inventories: The learning critical thinking inventory (LCTI) and the teaching critical thinking inventory (TCTI). Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across The Discipline , 28(3), 40-50.
Download a copy of the journal article here [PDF] .

How can I easily administer the LCTI to my students?

Both the LCTI and TCTI contain 11 Likert items and should each take no more than 5 minutes to complete. The LCTI student instrument can be deployed and is viewable within the “Assignments” section under “Assessments” -> “Survey” in your Blackboard course shell. The instructor can control visibility and access of the instrument via standard Blackboard control functions. All student responses from the LCTI remain anonymous. Please refer to the document titled “LCTI Survey Deployment” [PDF] for detailed instructions on making the assessment visible to students.

Download a copy of the Learning Critical Thinking Inventory here [PDF] .

How do I complete the TCTI that is designed specifically for instructors?

The TCTI instructor instrument is for your use only and is not located in your Blackboard course shell. Instructors can access and download an Adobe copy of the TCTI below. You can fill out the inventory at the beginning or end of the semester. Ideally, you will compare your self-assessment scores with the aggregated student scores at the end of the semester. You can then affirm the alignment of or identify possible gaps between your own perceptions and your students’ perceptions in order to make adjustments to the learning environment.

Download a copy of the Teaching Critical Thinking Inventory here [PDF] .

How do I review my results from students?

You will have complete access to student responses on the LCTI within your Blackboard Learn course shell. The course grade center will record which student completed the LCTI, but will only report out individual responses in aggregated form. Detailed instructions for accessing the student data is located here [PDF] . You will be given the opportunity to submit their data to the Quality Enhancement Plan team to have those data converted to a CTI feedback report. IL Barrow, QEP Specialist for Assessment, at the Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning is available upon request to assist you in organizing and using your data for continuous improvement.

Download an example feedback report here [PDF] .

Where can I find additional information on the use of the CTIs?

For additional questions, please download an exhaustive Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document for instructors here [PDF] .

Who can I contact for additional information on the CTIs?

IL Barrow, QEP Specialist for Assessment [email protected]

SACS & QEP
Planning and Implementation
Critical Thinking
Culminating Undergraduate Experience
2014-2016 Assessment Plan
Past Evaluation Plans
Assessment Methods
Webliography
Community Engagement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is i2a?

Are You Good at Critical Thinking? [Self-Assessment Test]

Critical thinking is a key skill for you to possess if you want to succeed in today’s dynamic and complex work environment.

Critical thinking is defined as the process of analyzing information, facts, and situations objectively and making well-reasoned judgments, and decisions and solving problems.

Critical thinking usually involves asking questions, evaluating evidence, understanding context and circumstances, and integrating various perspectives to come up with sound conclusions.

The complexity of many modern jobs usually demands that employees be competent critical thinkers. Critical thinking allows you to make better and more informed decisions, find creative solutions to problems, and evaluate risk effectively. It also enables you to identify assumptions, biases, and fallacies in your thinking and of others, which ensures that your thinking remains on track and objective.

For instance, let’s say you work in marketing, and you have been tasked with identifying the most effective social media platform to launch a new product.

By using critical thinking skills, you’d first evaluate the different platforms available objectively, research the demographics, the features and the target audience, and then make an informed decision that would ensure that the product gets maximum exposure and visibility.

By now, you may be wondering if you possess a strong ability to think critically.

This is where the self-assessment comes in. Our self-assessment will enable you to identify your critical thinking strengths and weaknesses and provide you with recommendations to enhance your thinking skills.

It’s time to take the self-assessment test and begin your journey to becoming a more effective critical thinker.

Self Assessment Test

To conduct the self-assessment, simply answer all questions, and click the calculate results button at the end.

I seek out and evaluate different perspectives and ideas before arriving at a conclusion. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to identify and analyze a problem to develop creative solutions. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I can recognize and evaluate arguments made by others and can construct strong arguments of my own. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I use evidence and reasoning to support my ideas and decisions. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am open-minded and consider alternatives before making decisions. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to identify and question my own assumptions and biases. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I ask questions to clarify information and to challenge assumptions or conclusions. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I can effectively communicate my ideas and reasoning to others. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to think creatively and generate new ideas. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am willing to change my mind based on new information or evidence. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of my own thinking and the thinking of others. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to analyze complex information and identify connections and patterns. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to anticipate potential consequences of a decision or action. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to evaluate risks and benefits when making a decision. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to identify and evaluate the validity and reliability of information sources. Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Interpreting Your Results

0-20 points.

If you scored 0-20 points, you might want to work on developing your critical thinking skills further. Critical thinking involves looking at issues objectively, analyzing them logically, and coming up with thoughtful, well-reasoned solutions. Consider seeking out resources to improve your critical thinking skills, such as books, online courses, or workshops. With practice, you can develop better critical thinking skills and become more self-aware.

21-40 Points

If you scored 21-40 points, you have some critical thinking skills, but there is room for improvement. Continue to develop your ability to analyze issues objectively, think logically, and evaluate evidence. Seek out opportunities to practice your critical thinking skills in your personal and professional life. By continuing to hone your skills, you will become a more effective problem-solver and decision-maker.

41-60 Points

If you scored 41-60 points, congratulations! You have strong critical thinking skills. You are able to look at complex problems and analyze them logically and objectively to come up with solutions. You are also able to evaluate evidence and make informed decisions. Continue to use and refine your critical thinking skills, and you will be an asset in many areas of your life, including work, relationships, and personal growth.

5 Quick Tips to Become Better at Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a valuable skill that helps you make informed decisions, solve problems, and evaluate arguments. If you want to improve your critical thinking skills, here are five quick tips you can follow:

1. Clarify Your Thinking

Before you can start evaluating arguments or solving problems, you need to clarify your own thinking. This means being clear about what you believe, what you don’t know, and what assumptions you’re making. Start by asking yourself questions like “What do I know?”, “What do I need to know?” and “What am I assuming?” By clarifying your thinking, you can avoid jumping to conclusions and improve your ability to evaluate arguments.

2. Practice Active Listening

Critical thinking involves listening carefully to other people’s arguments and ideas. To become better at critical thinking, you need to practice active listening . This means paying full attention to what the other person is saying, asking questions to clarify their points, and considering their perspective. Active listening can help you identify assumptions, biases, and logical fallacies in other people’s arguments.

3. Ask Questions

Asking questions is a key part of critical thinking. When you encounter a new idea or argument, ask questions to help you understand it better. Some good questions to ask include “What evidence supports this claim?” “What is the source of this information?” and “What are the assumptions underlying this argument?” By asking questions, you can evaluate arguments more effectively and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

4. Evaluate the Evidence

To become a good critical thinker, you need to be able to evaluate evidence objectively. This means looking for evidence that supports or contradicts an argument, considering the quality of the evidence, and evaluating the sources of the evidence. When evaluating evidence, be aware of your own biases and assumptions and try to avoid cherry-picking evidence to support your own position.

5. Practice Problem-Solving

Critical thinking involves solving problems and making decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. To become better at critical thinking, practice problem-solving. Identify problems in your daily life and brainstorm solutions, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. By practicing problem-solving, you can develop your critical thinking skills and improve your ability to analyze complex problems.

Disclaimers

All the information on this website - https://melbado.com/ - is published in good faith and for general information purpose only. Melbado does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (Melbado), is strictly at your own risk. Melbado will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website.

From our website, you can visit other websites by following hyperlinks to such external sites. While we strive to provide only quality links to useful and ethical websites, we have no control over the content and nature of these sites. These links to other websites do not imply a recommendation for all the content found on these sites. Site owners and content may change without notice and may occur before we have the opportunity to remove a link which may have gone 'bad'.

Please be also aware that when you leave our website, other sites may have different privacy policies and terms which are beyond our control. Please be sure to check the Privacy Policies of these sites as well as their "Terms of Service" before engaging in any business or uploading any information.

By using our website, you hereby consent to our disclaimer and agree to its terms.

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Development and validation of a critical thinking assessment-scale short form.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. shorthening of the ctsas, 2.2. participants, 2.3. instruments and procedures, 2.3.1. translation of the ctsas short form into different languages, 2.3.2. data collection, 2.4. statistical analysis, 3.1. descriptive analysis of items, 3.2. confirmatory factor analysis (cfa) and reliability.

Model 1: One-factor model. This model tests the existence of one global factor on critical thinking skills, which explains the variances of the 60 variables.
Model 2: Six-factor (non-correlated) model. This model tests the existence of six non-correlated factors that explain the variance of the set of items.
Model 3: Six-factor (correlated) model. This model tests the existence of six correlated latent factors, each one explaining the variance of a set of items.
Model 4: Second-order factor model. This model represents the original model proposed by Nair [ 36 ], in which a global critical-thinking-skills construct explains the six latent-skills variance, which, in turn, each explain a set of items.
Model 5: Bi-factor model. This model tests the possibility that the 60 scale-items variances are being explained by a global critical-thinking-skills construct, and by the six latent skills, independently.

3.3. Multigroup Invariance

4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

	Mean	Sd.	Skew.	Kurt.	K-S Test	p
1. I try to figure out the content of the problem.	5.04	0.958	−0.744	−0.232	0.152	1.000
2. I classify data using a framework.	3.89	1.319	−0.452	−0.140	0.994	0.276
3. I break the complex ideas into manageable sub-ideas.	3.96	1.357	−0.467	−0.049	0.718	0.682
4. I observe the facial expression people use in a given situation.	4.63	1.380	−1.071	0.715	0.914	0.374
5. I examine the values rooted in the information presented.	4.12	1.284	−0.532	−0.172	0.754	0.620
6. I restate another person’s statements to clarify the meaning.	3.63	1.515	−0.359	−0.545	0.762	0.607
7. I figure out an example which explains the concept/opinion.	4.53	1.097	−0.785	0.550	0.601	0.863
8. I clarify my thoughts by explaining to someone else.	4.29	1.348	−0.803	0.203	0.864	0.445
9. I seek clarification of the meanings of another’s opinion or points of view.	4.23	1.185	−0.483	−0.196	0.718	0.682
10. I examine the similarities and differences among the opinions posed for a given problem.	4.23	1.166	−0.742	0.765	0.518	0.951
11. I examine the interrelationships among concepts or opinions posed.	3.84	1.222	−0.364	0.101	0.629	0.823
12. I look for supporting reasons when examining opinions.	4.44	1.174	−0.692	0.436	0.640	0.808
13. I look for relevant information to answer the question at issue.	4.62	1.147	−0.855	0.657	0.651	0.790
14. I examine the proposals for solving a given problem.	4.65	1.089	−0.626	−0.100	0.260	1.000
15. I ask questions in order to seek evidence to support or refute the author’s claim.	4.09	1.341	−0.566	−0.084	1.041	0.229
16. I figure out if author’s arguments include both for and against the claim.	3.97	1.316	−0.433	−0.229	1.044	0.226
17. I figure out unstated assumptions in one’s reasoning for a claim.	3.63	1.289	−0.287	−0.190	0.723	0.673
18. I look for the overall structure of the argument.	3.99	1.332	−0.580	0.136	0.864	0.444
19. I figure out the process of reasoning for an argument.	4.02	1.306	−0.578	0.253	0.381	0.999
20. I figure out the assumptions implicit in the author’s reasoning.	3.73	1.275	−0.436	−0.032	0.828	0.500
21. I assess the contextual relevance of an opinion or claim posed.	4.00	1.192	−0.493	0.387	0.810	0.528
22. I seek the accuracy of the evidence supporting a given judgment.	4.18	1.283	−0.693	0.306	0.858	0.453
23. I assess the chances of success or failure in using a premise to conclude an argument.	4.08	1.344	−0.599	−0.007	1.120	0.163
24. I examine the logical strength of the underlying reason in an argument.	4.06	1.295	−0.464	−0.030	0.919	0.367
25. I search for new data to confirm or refute a given claim	4.15	1.288	−0.644	0.142	0.708	0.698
26. I search for additional information that might support or weaken an argument.	4.34	1.195	−0.520	−0.206	0.435	0.992
27. I examine the logical reasoning of an objection to a claim.	4.17	1.310	−0.552	0.025	0.883	0.417
28. I seek useful information to refute an argument when supported by unsure reasons.	4.37	1.186	−0.655	0.478	0.314	1.000
29. I collect evidence supporting the availability of information to back up opinions.	4.21	1.317	−0.771	0.585	0.794	0.554
30. I seek for evidence/information before accepting a solution.	4.49	1.241	−0.729	0.176	0.355	1.000
31. I figure out alternate hypotheses/questions, when I need to solve a problem.	4.21	1.311	−0.645	0.166	1.042	0.228
32. Given a problem to solve, I develop a set of options for solving the problem.	4.33	1.255	−0.685	0.234	0.683	0.739
33. I systematically analyse the problem using multiple sources of information to draw inferences.	4.11	1.381	−0.596	−0.103	0.325	1.000
34. I figure out the merits and demerits of a solution while prioritizing from alternatives for making decisions.	4.01	1.320	−0.455	−0.130	0.812	0.525
35. I identify the consequences of various options to solving a problem.	4.36	1.208	−0.558	−0.009	0.625	0.830
36. I arrive at conclusions that are supported with strong evidence.	4.30	1.164	−0.328	−0.484	0.490	0.970
37. I use both deductive and inductive reasoning to interpret information.	4.00	1.330	−0.419	−0.259	0.766	0.600
38. I analyse my thinking before jumping to conclusions.	4.39	1.335	−0.710	0.065	0.437	0.991
39. I confidently reject an alternative solution when it lacks evidence.	3.89	1.417	−0.312	−0.587	0.541	0.932
40. I figure out the pros and cons of a solution before accepting it.	4.64	1.175	−0.721	0.216	0.710	0.695
41. I can describe the results of a problem using inferential evidence.	3.78	1.206	−0.269	0.068	0.701	0.709
42. I can logically present results to address a given problem.	4.18	1.138	−0.425	0.111	1.533	0.018
43. I state my choice of using a particular method to solve the problem.	4.03	1.277	−0.530	0.164	0.305	1.000
44. I can explain a key concept to clarify my thinking.	4.10	1.246	−0.408	−0.141	0.585	0.883
45. I write essays with adequate arguments supported with reasons for a given policy or situation.	3.13	1.734	−0.208	−0.966	0.833	0.492
46. I anticipate reasonable criticisms one might raise against one’s viewpoints.	3.92	1.319	−0.438	−0.340	0.730	0.661
47. I respond to reasonable criticisms one might raise against one’s viewpoints.	3.82	1.292	−0.456	−0.055	1.772	0.004
48. I clearly articulate evidence for my own viewpoints.	4.22	1.159	−0.353	−0.283	0.195	1.000
49. I present more evidence or counter evidence for another’s points of view.	3.61	1.338	−0.258	−0.540	0.664	0.770
50. I provide reasons for rejecting another’s claim.	4.04	1.400	−0.535	−0.309	1.255	0.086
51. I reflect on my opinions and reasons to ensure my premises are correct.	4.43	1.136	−0.442	−0.421	0.540	0.932
52. I review sources of information to ensure important information is not overlooked.	4.26	1.317	−0.628	−0.074	1.009	0.260
53. I examine and consider ideas and viewpoints even when others do not agree.	4.20	1.156	−0.380	−0.235	0.174	1.000
54. I examine my values, thoughts/beliefs based on reasons and evidence.	4.41	1.159	−0.455	−0.151	0.143	1.000
55. I continuously assess my targets and work towards achieving them.	4.46	1.182	−0.472	−0.367	0.354	1.000
56. I review my reasons and reasoning process in coming to a given conclusion.	4.18	1.187	−0.349	−0.236	0.415	0.995
57. I analyze areas of consistencies and inconsistencies in my thinking.	4.01	1.294	−0.448	−0.192	0.926	0.358
58. I willingly revise my work to correct my opinions and beliefs.	4.27	1.263	−0.457	−0.172	0.663	0.772
59. I continually revise and rethink strategies to improve my thinking.	4.34	1.280	−0.601	−0.073	0.683	0.739
60. I reflect on my thinking to improve the quality of my judgment.	4.53	1.187	−0.805	0.752	0.235	1.000

Item	Interpretation	Analysis	Evaluation	Inference	Explanation	Self-Regulation
1. I try to figure out the content of the problem.	0.662
2. I classify data using a framework.	0.661
3. I break the complex ideas into manageable sub-ideas.	0.633
4. I observe the facial expression people use in a given situation	0.386
5. I examine the values rooted in the information presented.	0.654
6. I restate another person’s statements to clarify the meaning.	0.499
7. I figure out an example which explains the concept/opinion.	0.594
8. I clarify my thoughts by explaining to someone else.	0.422
9. I seek clarification of the meanings of another’s opinion or points of view.	0.536
10. I examine the similarities and differences among the opinions posed for a given problem.		0.614
11. I examine the interrelationships among concepts or opinions posed.		0.734
12. I look for supporting reasons when examining opinions.		0.671
13. I look for relevant information to answer the question at issue.		0.650
14. I examine the proposals for solving a given problem.		0.701
15. I ask questions in order to seek evidence to support or refute the author’s claim.		0.666
16. I figure out if author’s arguments include both for and against the claim.		0.670
17. I figure out unstated assumptions in one’s reasoning for a claim.		0.619
18. I look for the overall structure of the argument.		0.707
19. I figure out the process of reasoning for an argument.		0.772
20. I figure out the assumptions implicit in the author’s reasoning.		0.745
21. I assess the contextual relevance of an opinion or claim posed.			0.723
22. I seek the accuracy of the evidence supporting a given judgment.			0.735
23. I assess the chances of success or failure in using a premise to conclude an argument.			0.702
24. I examine the logical strength of the underlying reason in an argument.			0.725
25. I search for new data to confirm or refute a given claim			0.674
26. I search for additional information that might support or weaken an argument.			0.732
27. I examine the logical reasoning of an objection to a claim.			0.761
28. I seek useful information to refute an argument when supported by unsure reasons.				0.717
29. I collect evidence supporting the availability of information to back up opinions.				0.740
30. I seek for evidence/information before accepting a solution.				0.691
31. I figure out alternate hypotheses/questions, when I need to solve a problem.				0.734
32. Given a problem to solve, I develop a set of options for solving the problem.				0.710
33. I systematically analyse the problem using multiple sources of information to draw inferences.				0.738
34. I figure out the merits and demerits of a solution while prioritizing from alternatives for making decisions.				0.742
35. I identify the consequences of various options to solving a problem.				0.704
36. I arrive at conclusions that are supported with strong evidence.				0.756
37. I use both deductive and inductive reasoning to interpret information.				0.696
38. I analyse my thinking before jumping to conclusions.				0.636
39. I confidently reject an alternative solution when it lacks evidence.				0.470
40. I figure out the pros and cons of a solution before accepting it.				0.656
41. I can describe the results of a problem using inferential evidence.					0.745
42. I can logically present results to address a given problem.					0.749
43. I state my choice of using a particular method to solve the problem.					0.672
44. I can explain a key concept to clarify my thinking.					0.740
45. I write essays with adequate arguments supported with reasons for a given policy or situation.					0.511
46. I anticipate reasonable criticisms one might raise against one’s viewpoints					0.606
47. I respond to reasonable criticisms one might raise against one’s viewpoints.					0.650
48. I clearly articulate evidence for my own viewpoints.					0.720
49. I present more evidence or counter evidence for another’s points of view.					0.573
50. I provide reasons for rejecting another’s claim.					0.536
51. I reflect on my opinions and reasons to ensure my premises are correct.						0.719
52. I review sources of information to ensure important information is not overlooked.						0.785
53. I examine and consider ideas and viewpoints even when others do not agree.						0.705
54. I examine my values, thoughts/beliefs based on reasons and evidence.						0.756
55. I continuously assess my targets and work towards achieving them.						0.673
56. I review my reasons and reasoning process in coming to a given conclusion.						0.728
57. I analyze areas of consistencies and inconsistencies in my thinking.						0.737
58. I willingly revise my work to correct my opinions and beliefs.						0.750
59. I continually revise and rethink strategies to improve my thinking.						0.786
60. I reflect on my thinking to improve the quality of my judgment.						0.763

Skills	Alpha’s Cronbach	Sub-Skills	Std Alpha’s Cronbach
Interpretation	0.772	Categorization	0.670
		Clarifying meaning	0.673
		Decoding significance	0.473
Analysis	0.888	Detecting arguments	0.632
		Analyzing arguments	0.812
		Examining ideas	0.799
Evaluation	0.858	Assessing claim	0.723
Evaluation	0.858	Assessing arguments	0.821
Inference	0.905	Drawing conclusions	0.743
		Conjecturing alternatives	0.843
		Querying evidence	0.752
Explanation	0.853	Stating results	0.688
		Justifying procedures	0.681
		Presenting arguments	0.778
Self-regulation	0.905	Self-examining	0.860
Self-regulation	0.905	Self-correction	0.834

Dumitru, D.; Bigu, D.; Elen, J.; Jiang, L.; Railienè, A.; Penkauskienè, D.; Papathanasiou, I.V.; Tsaras, K.; Fradelos, E.C.; Ahern, A.; et al. A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century ; UTAD: Vila Real, Portugal, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Cruz, G.; Payan-Carreira, R.; Dominguez, C.; Silva, H.; Morais, F. What critical thinking skills and dispositions do new graduates need for professional life? Views from Portuguese employers in different fields. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2021 , 40 , 721–737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Braun, H.I.; Shavelson, R.J.; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O.; Borowiec, K. Performance Assessment of Critical Thinking: Conceptualization, Design, and Implementation. Front. Educ. 2020 , 5 , 156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cinque, M.; Carretero, S.; Napierala, J. Non-Cognitive Skills and Other Related Concepts: Towards a Better Understanding of Similarities and Differences ; Joint Research Centre, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; 31p. [ Google Scholar ]
Pnevmatikos, D.; Christodoulou, P.; Georgiadou, T.; Lithoxoidou, A.; Dimitriadou, A.; Payan Carreira, R.; Simões, M.; Ferreira, D.; Rebelo, H.; Sebastião, L.; et al. THINK4JOBS TRAINING: Critical Thinking Training Packages for Higher Education Instructors and Labour Market Tutors ; University of Western Macedonia: Kozani, Greece, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
Facione, P. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (The Delphi Report) ; California Academic Press: Millbrae, CA, USA; Newark, DE, USA, 1990; 112p. [ Google Scholar ]
Payan-Carreira, R.; Sebastião, L.; Cristóvão, A.; Rebelo, H. How to Enhance Students’ Self-Regulation. In The Psychology of Self-Regulation ; Dutton, J., Ed.; Psychology of Emotions, Motivations and Actions; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2022; p. 22. (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
Rear, D. One size fits all? The limitations of standardised assessment in critical thinking. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2019 , 44 , 664–675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Thaiposri, P.; Wannapiroon, P. Enhancing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills through Teaching and Learning by Inquiry-based Learning Activities Using Social Network and Cloud Computing. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 174 , 2137–2144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Lai, R.E. Critical Thinking: A Literature Review. Pearson Res. Rep. 2011 , 6 , 40–41. [ Google Scholar ]
Shavelson, R.J.; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O.; Beck, K.; Schmidt, S.; Marino, J.P. Assessment of University Students’ Critical Thinking: Next Generation Performance Assessment. Int. J. Test. 2019 , 19 , 337–362. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pnevmatikos, D.; Christodoulou, P.; Georgiadou, T. Promoting critical thinking in higher education through the values and knowledge education (VaKE) method. Stud. High. Educ. 2019 , 44 , 892–901. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Facione, P.A. The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Log. 2000 , 20 , 61–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Ennis, R.H. The Nature of Critical Thinking: Outlines of General Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. 2013. Available online: https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2022).
Halpern, D.F. Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 1998 , 53 , 449–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nair, G.G.; Stamler, L. A Conceptual Framework for Developing a Critical Thinking Self-Assessment Scale. J. Nurs. Educ. 2013 , 52 , 131–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rapps, A.M. Let the Seuss loose. In Rutgers ; The State University of New Jersey: Camden, NJ, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
Tight, M. Twenty-first century skills: Meaning, usage and value. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2021 , 11 , 160–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ryan, C.; Tatum, K. Objective Measurement of Critical-Thinking Ability in Registered Nurse Applicants. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 2012 , 42 , 89–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Patrício, M.F.; Julião, M.; Fareleira, F.; Carneiro, A.V. Is the OSCE a feasible tool to assess competencies in undergraduate medical education? Med. Teach. 2013 , 35 , 503–514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hyytinen, H.; Ursin, J.; Silvennoinen, K.; Kleemola, K.; Toom, A. The dynamic relationship between response processes and self-regulation in critical thinking assessments. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2021 , 71 , 101090. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Simper, N.; Frank, B.; Kaupp, J.; Mulligan, N.; Scott, J. Comparison of standardized assessment methods: Logistics, costs, incentives and use of data. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2019 , 44 , 821–834. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Verburgh, A.; François, S.; Elen, J.; Janssen, R. The Assessment of Critical Thinking Critically Assessed in Higher Education: A Validation Study of the CCTT and the HCTA. Educ. Res. Int. 2013 , 2013 , 198920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hart, C.; Da Costa, C.; D’Souza, D.; Kimpton, A.; Ljbusic, J. Exploring higher education students’ critical thinking skills through content analysis. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 41 , 100877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Williamson, D.M.; Xi, X.; Breyer, F.J. A Framework for Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2012 , 31 , 2–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Haromi, F.; Sadeghi, K.; Modirkhameneh, S.; Alavinia, P.; Khonbi, Z. Teaching through Appraisal: Developing Critical Reading in Iranian EFL Learners. Proc. Int. Conf. Current Trends Elt 2014 , 98 , 127–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Ku, K.Y.L. Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Think. Ski. Creat. 2009 , 4 , 70–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
de Bie, H.; Wilhelm, P.; van der Meij, H. The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment: Toward a Dutch appraisal of critical thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2015 , 17 , 33–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Liu, O.L.; Frankel, L.; Roohr, K.C. Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for Next-Generation Assessment. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2014 , 2014 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hatcher, D.L. Which test? Whose scores? Comparing standardized critical thinking tests. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2011 , 2011 , 29–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cole, J.S.; Gonyea, R.M. Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores: Implications for Research. Res. High. Educ. 2010 , 51 , 305–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Althubaiti, A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 , 9 , 211–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Payan-Carreira, R.; Cruz, G.; Papathanasiou, I.V.; Fradelos, E.; Jiang, L. The effectiveness of critical thinking instructional strategies in health professions education: A systematic review. Stud. High. Educ. 2019 , 44 , 829–843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kreitchmann, R.S.; Abad, F.J.; Ponsoda, V.; Nieto, M.D.; Morillo, D. Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 2309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Nair, G. Preliminary Psychometric Characteristics of the Critical Thinking Self-Assessment Scale ; University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Nair, G.G.; Hellsten, L.M.; Stamler, L.L. Accumulation of Content Validation Evidence for the Critical Thinking Self-Assessment Scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 2017 , 25 , 156–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gudmundsson, E. Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nord. Psychol. 2009 , 61 , 29–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tsang, S.; Royse, C.F.; Terkawi, A.S. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2017 , 11 , S80–S89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gerdts-Andresen, T.; Hansen, M.T.; Grøndahl, V.A. Educational effectiveness: Validation of an instrument to measure students’ critical thinking and disposition. Int. J. Instr. 2022 , 25 , 685–700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Flora, D.B.; Curran, P.J. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol. Methods 2004 , 9 , 466–491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
Hu, L.t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999 , 6 , 1–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hair, J.F.; Page, M.; Brunsveld, N. Essentials of Business Research Methods , 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
Cheung, G.W.; Rensvold, R.B. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2002 , 9 , 233–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2007 , 14 , 464–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide ; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research , 2nd ed.; Guiford Press: New York, NJ, USA, 2015; 462p. [ Google Scholar ]
MacCallum, R.C.; Widaman, K.F.; Zhang, S.; Hong, S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol. Methods 1999 , 4 , 84–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Commission, E. Tertiary Education Statistics ; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
Feinian, C.; Curran, P.J.; Bollen, K.A.; Kirby, J.; Paxton, P. An Empirical Evaluation of the Use of Fixed Cutoff Points in RMSEA Test Statistic in Structural Equation Models. Sociol. Methods Res. 2008 , 36 , 462–494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Rosenman, R.; Tennekoon, V.; Hill, L.G. Measuring bias in self-reported data. Int. J. Behav. Healthc. Res. 2011 , 2 , 320–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018 , 48 , 1273–1296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Marôco, J. Análise de Equações Estruturais—Fundamentos Teóricos, Software & Aplicações , 2nd ed.; ReportNumber, Análise e Gestão de Informação, Ltd.: Pero Pinheiro, Portugal, 2014; p. 390. [ Google Scholar ]
Maroco, J. Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics , 7th ed.; ReportNumber-Análise e gestão de Informação, Ltd.: Pero Pinheiro, Portugal, 2018; 1013p. [ Google Scholar ]
Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol. Assess. 2019 , 31 , 1412–1427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

CTSAS Dimensions (Skills/Sub-Skills)		Items in the Original CTSAS	Eliminated Items	Items in the CTSAS Short-Form
Interpretation	Categorization	1–9	2, 4, 6–8	1–3
	Clarifying meaning	15–21	18–20	6–9
	Decoding significance	10–14	10, 12, 14	4, 5
Analysis	Detecting arguments	28–33	32, 33	15, 16
	Analyzing arguments	34–49	34, 39	17–20
	Examining ideas	22–27	27–29	10–14
Evaluation	Assessing claims	40–44	40–42	21, 22
Evaluation	Assessing arguments	45–52	46, 50, 52	23–27
Inference	Drawing conclusions	67–74	67, 68, 73	36–40
	Conjecturing alternatives	60–66	62, 65	31–35
	Querying evidence	53–59	53, 54, 58, 59	28–30
Explanation	Stating results	75–79	76, 77, 79	41, 42
	Justifying procedures	80–88	81, 83–88	43, 44
	Presenting arguments	89–96	95, 96	45–50
Self-regulation	Self-examination	97–105	98, 104	51–57
Self-regulation	Self-correction	106–115	107, 109–111, 113–115	58–60

Models	χ (df)	p	RMSEA [90%IC]	CFI	TLI
Model 1: 1-factor model	5159.412 (1710)	<0.0001	0.061 [0.059–0.063]	0.893	0.890
Model 2: 6-factor model (non-correlated)	29275.338 (1710)	<0.0001	0.174 [0.172–0176]	0.148	0.118
Model 3: 6-factor model (correlated)	3871.243 (1695)	<0.0001	0.049 [0.047–0.051]	0.933	0.930
Model 4: second-order factor model	3975.885 (1704)	<0.0001	0.051 [0.049–0.053]	0.927	0.924
Model 5: bi-factor model	18,656.904 (1657)	<0.0001	0.139 [0.137–0.141]	0.474	0.439

Skills	α	CrT-Skills	1	2	3	4	5
1. Interpretation	0.772	0.881
2. Analysis	0.888	0.925	0.905
3. Evaluation	0.858	0.965	0.810	0.934
4. Inference	0.905	0.956	0.806	0.858	0.937
5. Explanation	0.853	0.907	0.765	0.825	0.864	0.868
6. Self-regulation	0.905	0.851	0.750	0.750	0.781	0.841	0.805

	(df)
Female	3488.157 (1704)	<0.0001	0.052 [0.049–0.054]	0.929	0.926
Male	2314.349 (1704)	<0.0001	0.050 [0.045–0.055]	0.948	0.946
	(df)
Configural invariance	5521.460 (3390)	<0.0001	0.049 [0.046–0.051]	0.939	0.936
Metric invariance	5490.717 (3444)	<0.0001	0.047 [0.045–0.050]	0.941	0.940
Scalar invariance	5613.987 (3732)	<0.0001	0.044 [0.041–0.046]	0.946	0.949
	(df)
Metric vs. Configural	45.988 (54)	0.773	0.002	0.002
Scalar vs. Configural	370.658 (342)	0.137	0.005	0.007
Scalar vs. Metric	328.786 (288)	0.049	0.003	0.005

Skills	Interpretation		Analysis		Evaluation		Inference		Explanation
Skills	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M
Analysis	0.888	0.941
Evaluation	0.760	0.900	0.922	0.955
Inference	0.759	0.890	0.838	0.902	0.924	0.956
Explanation	0.739	0.849	0.816	0.877	0.850	0.907	0.856	0.925
Self-regulation	0.720	0.808	0.738	0.780	0.759	0.825	0.805	0.907	0.782	0.885

Skills	ΔMeans	SE	Est/SE	p
Interpretation	−0.014	0.106	−0.129	0.897
Analysis	0.023	0.096	0.244	0.807
Evaluation	0.071	0.096	0.736	0.462
Inference	−0.051	0.099	−0.512	0.608
Explanation	0.177	0.097	1.832	0.067
Self-regulation	−0.005	0.098	−0.046	0.963

MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

Payan-Carreira, R.; Sacau-Fontenla, A.; Rebelo, H.; Sebastião, L.; Pnevmatikos, D. Development and Validation of a Critical Thinking Assessment-Scale Short Form. Educ. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120938

Payan-Carreira R, Sacau-Fontenla A, Rebelo H, Sebastião L, Pnevmatikos D. Development and Validation of a Critical Thinking Assessment-Scale Short Form. Education Sciences . 2022; 12(12):938. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120938

Payan-Carreira, Rita, Ana Sacau-Fontenla, Hugo Rebelo, Luis Sebastião, and Dimitris Pnevmatikos. 2022. "Development and Validation of a Critical Thinking Assessment-Scale Short Form" Education Sciences 12, no. 12: 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120938

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

Externally hosted supplementary file 1 Doi: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Critical Thinking: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples

By Status.net Editorial Team on July 15, 2023 — 8 minutes to read

Critical thinking skills are an essential aspect of an employee’s evaluation: the ability to solve problems, analyze situations, and make informed decisions is crucial for the success of any organization.

Questions that can help you determine an employee’s rating for critical thinking:

Does the employee consistently analyze data and information to identify patterns and trends?
Does the employee proactively identify potential problems and develop solutions to mitigate them?
Has the employee demonstrated the ability to think creatively and come up with innovative ideas or approaches?
Does the employee actively seek out feedback and input from others to inform their decision-making process?
Has the employee demonstrated the ability to make sound decisions based on available information and data?

Performance Review Phrases and Paragraphs Examples For Critical Thinking

5 – outstanding.

Employees with outstanding critical thinking skills are exceptional at identifying patterns, making connections, and using past experiences to inform their decisions.

Phrases Examples

Consistently demonstrates exceptional critical thinking abilities
Always finds creative and innovative solutions to complex problems
Skilfully analyzes information and data to make well-informed decisions
Frequently provides valuable insights and perspectives that benefit the team
Continuously seeks out new learning opportunities to sharpen their critical thinking skills
Demonstrates exceptional ability to identify and analyze complex issues
Consistently develops innovative solutions to problems
Skillfully connects disparate ideas to create coherent arguments
Effectively communicates well-reasoned conclusions
Exceptional ability to recognize trends in data
Expertly applies existing knowledge to new situations
Consistently anticipates potential challenges and develops solution

Paragraph Example 1

“Jane consistently demonstrates outstanding critical thinking skills in her role. She not only engages in deep analysis of complex information, but she also presents unique solutions to problems that have a significant positive impact on the team’s performance. Her ability to make well-informed decisions and offer valuable insights has led to numerous successes for the organization. Moreover, Jane’s dedication to improvement and learning demonstrates her commitment to personal and professional growth in the area of critical thinking.”

Paragraph Example 2

“Jessica consistently displays outstanding critical thinking skills. She is able to identify and analyze complex issues with ease and has demonstrated her ability to develop innovative solutions. Her skill in connecting disparate ideas to create coherent arguments is impressive, and she excels at communicating her well-reasoned conclusions to the team.”

Paragraph Example 3

“Melanie consistently demonstrates an exceptional ability to recognize patterns and trends in data, which has significantly contributed to the success of our projects. Her critical thinking skills allow her to apply her extensive knowledge and experience in creative and innovative ways, proactively addressing potential challenges and developing effective solutions.”

4 – Exceeds Expectations

Employees exceeding expectations in critical thinking skills are adept at analyzing information, making sound decisions, and providing thoughtful recommendations. They are also effective at adapting their knowledge to novel situations and displaying confidence in their abilities.

Excellent analytical capabilities
Provides well-reasoned recommendations
Demonstrates a solid understanding of complex concepts
Regularly demonstrates the ability to think analytically and critically
Effectively identifies and addresses complex problems with well-thought-out solutions
Shows exceptional skill in generating innovative ideas and solutions
Exhibits a consistently high level of decision-making based on sound reasoning
Proactively seeks out new information to improve critical thinking skills
Routinely identifies potential challenges and provides solutions
Typically recognizes and prioritizes the most relevant information
Logical thinking is evident in daily decision-making
Often weighs the pros and cons of multiple options before selecting a course of action

“Eric’s critical thinking skills have consistently exceeded expectations throughout his tenure at the company. He is skilled at reviewing and analyzing complex information, leading him to provide well-reasoned recommendations and insights. Eric regularly demonstrates a deep understanding of complicated concepts, which allows him to excel in his role.”

“In this evaluation period, Jane has consistently demonstrated an exceptional ability to think critically and analytically. She has repeatedly shown skill in identifying complex issues while working on projects and has provided well-thought-out and effective solutions. Her innovative ideas have contributed significantly to the success of several key initiatives. Moreover, Jane’s decision-making skills are built on sound reasoning, which has led to positive outcomes for the team and organization. Additionally, she actively seeks opportunities to acquire new information and apply it to her work, further strengthening her critical thinking capabilities.”

“John consistently exceeds expectations in his critical thinking abilities. He routinely identifies potential challenges and provides thoughtful solutions. He is skilled at recognizing and prioritizing the most relevant information to make well-informed decisions. John regularly weighs the pros and cons of various options and selects the best course of action based on logic.”

3 – Meets Expectations

Employees meeting expectations in critical thinking skills demonstrate an ability to analyze information and draw logical conclusions. They are effective at problem-solving and can make informed decisions with minimal supervision.

Capable of processing information and making informed decisions
Displays problem-solving skills
Demonstrates logical thinking and reasoning
Consistently demonstrates the ability to analyze problems and find possible solutions.
Actively engages in group discussions and contributes valuable ideas.
Demonstrates the ability to draw conclusions based on logical analysis of information.
Shows willingness to consider alternative perspectives when making decisions.
Weighs the pros and cons of a situation before reaching a decision.
Usually identifies relevant factors when faced with complex situations
Demonstrates an understanding of cause and effect relationships
Generally uses sound reasoning to make decisions
Listens to and considers different perspectives

“Sarah consistently meets expectations in her critical thinking skills, successfully processing information and making informed decisions. She has shown her ability to solve problems effectively and displays logical reasoning when approaching new challenges. Sarah continues to be a valuable team member thanks to these critical thinking skills.”

“Jane is a team member who consistently meets expectations in regards to her critical thinking skills. She demonstrates an aptitude for analyzing problems within the workplace and actively seeks out potential solutions by collaborating with her colleagues. Jane is open-minded and makes an effort to consider alternative perspectives during decision-making processes. She carefully weighs the pros and cons of the situations she encounters, which helps her make informed choices that align with the company’s objectives.”

“David meets expectations in his critical thinking skills. He can usually identify the relevant factors when dealing with complex situations and demonstrates an understanding of cause and effect relationships. David’s decision-making is generally based on sound reasoning, and he listens to and considers different perspectives before reaching a conclusion.”

2 – Needs Improvement

Employees in need of improvement in critical thinking skills may struggle with processing information and making logical conclusions. They may require additional guidance when making decisions or solving problems.

Struggles with analyzing complex information
Requires guidance when working through challenges
Difficulty applying past experiences to new situations
With some guidance, Jane is able to think critically, but she struggles to do so independently.
John tends to jump to conclusions without analyzing a situation fully.
Sarah’s problem-solving skills need improvement, as she often overlooks important information when making decisions.
David’s critical thinking skills are limited and need further development to enhance his overall work performance.
Occasionally struggles to identify and analyze problems effectively
Inconsistently uses logic to make decisions
Often overlooks important information or perspectives
Requires guidance in weighing options and making judgments

“Bob’s critical thinking skills could benefit from further development and improvement. He often struggles when analyzing complex information and tends to need additional guidance when working through challenges. Enhancing Bob’s ability to apply his past experiences to new situations would lead to a notable improvement in his overall performance.”

“Jenny is a valuable team member, but her critical thinking skills need improvement before she will be able to reach her full potential. In many instances, Jenny makes decisions based on her first impressions without questioning the validity of her assumptions or considering alternative perspectives. Her tendency to overlook key details has led to several instances in which her solutions are ineffective or only partly beneficial. With focused guidance and support, Jenny has the potential to develop her critical thinking skills and make more informed decisions in the future.”

“Tom’s critical thinking skills require improvement. He occasionally struggles to identify and analyze problems effectively, and his decision-making is inconsistent in its use of logic. Tom often overlooks important information or perspectives and may require guidance in weighing options and making judgments.”

1 – Unacceptable

Employees with unacceptable critical thinking skills lack the ability to analyze information effectively, struggle with decision-making, and fail to solve problems without extensive support from others.

Fails to draw logical conclusions from information
Incapable of making informed decisions
Unable to solve problems without extensive assistance
Fails to analyze potential problems before making decisions
Struggles to think critically and ask relevant questions
Cannot effectively identify alternative solutions
Lacks the ability to apply logic and reason in problem-solving situations
Does not consistently seek input from others or gather information before making a decision
Regularly fails to recognize or address important issues
Makes hasty decisions without considering potential consequences
Lacks objectivity and often relies on personal biases
Resistant to alternative viewpoints and constructive feedback

“Unfortunately, Sue’s critical thinking skills have been consistently unacceptable. She fails to draw logical conclusions from available information and is incapable of making informed decisions. Sue has also shown that she is unable to solve problems without extensive assistance from others, which significantly impacts her performance and the team’s productivity.”

“Jane’s performance in critical thinking has been unacceptable. She often fails to analyze potential problems before making decisions and struggles to think critically and ask relevant questions. Jane’s inability to effectively identify alternative solutions and apply logic and reason in problem-solving situations has negatively impacted her work. Furthermore, she does not consistently seek input from others or gather information before making a decision. It is crucial for Jane to improve her critical thinking skills to become a more effective and valuable team member.”

“Susan’s critical thinking skills are unacceptable. She regularly fails to recognize and address important issues, and her decision-making is often hasty and without considering potential consequences. Susan frequently lacks objectivity and tends to rely on personal biases. She is resistant to alternative viewpoints and constructive feedback, which negatively affects her work performance.”

Job Knowledge Performance Review Phrases (Examples)
100 Performance Review Phrases for Job Knowledge, Judgment, Listening Skills
100+ Performance Evaluation Comments for Attitude, Training Ability, Critical Thinking
How to Write an Effective Performance Review (Essential Steps)
How To Write a Manager Performance Review? (with Examples)
60 Self-Performance Review Goals Examples

Teaching Tips

A Brief Guide for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Psychology

In my first year of college teaching, a student approached me one day after class and politely asked, “What did you mean by the word ‘evidence’?” I tried to hide my shock at what I took to be a very naive question. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that this was actually a good question, for which the usual approaches to teaching psychology provided too few answers. During the next several years, I developed lessons and techniques to help psychology students learn how to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of scientific and nonscientific kinds of evidence and to help them draw sound conclusions. It seemed to me that learning about the quality of evidence and drawing appropriate conclusions from scientific research were central to teaching critical thinking (CT) in psychology.

In this article, I have attempted to provide guidelines to psychology instructors on how to teach CT, describing techniques I developed over 20 years of teaching. More importantly, the techniques and approach described below are ones that are supported by scientific research. Classroom examples illustrate the use of the guidelines and how assessment can be integrated into CT skill instruction.

Overview of the Guidelines

Confusion about the definition of CT has been a major obstacle to teaching and assessing it (Halonen, 1995; Williams, 1999). To deal with this problem, we have defined CT as reflective thinking involved in the evaluation of evidence relevant to a claim so that a sound or good conclusion can be drawn from the evidence (Bensley, 1998). One virtue of this definition is it can be applied to many thinking tasks in psychology. The claims and conclusions psychological scientists make include hypotheses, theoretical statements, interpretation of research findings, or diagnoses of mental disorders. Evidence can be the results of an experiment, case study, naturalistic observation study, or psychological test. Less formally, evidence can be anecdotes, introspective reports, commonsense beliefs, or statements of authority. Evaluating evidence and drawing appropriate conclusions along with other skills, such as distinguishing arguments from nonarguments and finding assumptions, are collectively called argument analysis skills. Many CT experts take argument analysis skills to be fundamental CT skills (e.g., Ennis, 1987; Halpern, 1998). Psychology students need argument analysis skills to evaluate psychological claims in their work and in everyday discourse.

Some instructors expect their students will improve CT skills like argument analysis skills by simply immersing them in challenging course work. Others expect improvement because they use a textbook with special CT questions or modules, give lectures that critically review the literature, or have students complete written assignments. While these and other traditional techniques may help, a growing body of research suggests they are not sufficient to efficiently produce measurable changes in CT skills. Our research on acquisition of argument analysis skills in psychology (Bensley, Crowe, Bernhardt, Buchner, & Allman, in press) and on critical reading skills (Bensley & Haynes, 1995; Spero & Bensley, 2009) suggests that more explicit, direct instruction of CT skills is necessary. These results concur with results of an earlier review of CT programs by Chance (1986) and a recent meta-analysis by Abrami et al., (2008).

Based on these and other findings, the following guidelines describe an approach to explicit instruction in which instructors can directly infuse CT skills and assessment into their courses. With infusion, instructors can use relevant content to teach CT rules and concepts along with the subject matter. Directly infusing CT skills into course work involves targeting specific CT skills, making CT rules, criteria, and methods explicit, providing guided practice in the form of exercises focused on assessing skills, and giving feedback on practice and assessments. These components are similar to ones found in effective, direct instruction approaches (Walberg, 2006). They also resemble approaches to teaching CT proposed by Angelo (1995), Beyer (1997), and Halpern (1998). Importantly, this approach has been successful in teaching CT skills in psychology (e.g., Bensley, et al., in press; Bensley & Haynes, 1995; Nieto & Saiz, 2008; Penningroth, Despain, & Gray, 2007). Directly infusing CT skill instruction can also enrich content instruction without sacrificing learning of subject matter (Solon, 2003). The following seven guidelines, illustrated by CT lessons and assessments, explicate this process.

Seven Guidelines for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking

1. Motivate your students to think critically

Critical thinking takes effort. Without proper motivation, students are less inclined to engage in it. Therefore, it is good to arouse interest right away and foster commitment to improving CT throughout a course. One motivational strategy is to explain why CT is important to effective, professional behavior. Often, telling a compelling story that illustrates the consequences of failing to think critically can motivate students. For example, the tragic death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker at the hands of her therapists practicing attachment therapy illustrates the perils of using a therapy that has not been supported by good empirical evidence (Lilienfeld, 2007).

Instructors can also pique interest by taking a class poll posing an interesting question on which students are likely to have an opinion. For example, asking students how many think that the full moon can lead to increases in abnormal behavior can be used to introduce the difference between empirical fact and opinion or common sense belief. After asking students how psychologists answer such questions, instructors might go over the meta-analysis of Rotton and Kelly (1985). Their review found that almost all of the 37 studies they reviewed showed no association between the phase of the moon and abnormal behavior with only a few, usually poorly, controlled studies supporting it. Effect size over all studies was very small (.01). Instructors can use this to illustrate how psychologists draw a conclusion based on the quality and quantity of research studies as opposed to what many people commonly believe. For other interesting thinking errors and misconceptions related to psychology, see Bensley (1998; 2002; 2008), Halpern (2003), Ruscio (2006), Stanovich (2007), and Sternberg (2007).

Attitudes and dispositions can also affect motivation to think critically. If students lack certain CT dispositions such as open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, and skepticism, they will be less likely to think critically even if they have CT skills (Halpern, 1998). Instructors might point out that even great scientists noted for their powers of reasoning sometimes fail to think critically when they are not disposed to use their skills. For example, Alfred Russel Wallace who used his considerable CT skills to help develop the concept of natural selection also believed in spiritualistic contact with the dead. Despite considerable evidence that mediums claiming to contact the dead were really faking such contact, Wallace continued to believe in it (Bensley, 2006). Likewise, the great American psychologist William James, whose reasoning skills helped him develop the seeds of important contemporary theories, believed in spiritualism despite evidence to the contrary.

2. Clearly state the CT goals and objectives for your class

Once students are motivated, the instructor should focus them on what skills they will work on during the course. The APA task force on learning goals and objectives for psychology listed CT as one of 10 major goals for students (Halonen et al., 2002). Under critical thinking they have further specified outcomes such as evaluating the quality of information, identifying and evaluating the source and credibility of information, recognizing and defending against thinking errors and fallacies. Instructors should publish goals like these in their CT course objectives in their syllabi and more specifically as assignment objectives in their assignments. Given the pragmatic penchant of students for studying what is needed to succeed in a course, this should help motivate and focus them.

To make instruction efficient, course objectives and lesson objectives should explicitly target CT skills to be improved. Objectives should specify the behavior that will change in a way that can be measured. A course objective might read, “After taking this course, you will be able to analyze arguments found in psychological and everyday discussions.” When the goal of a lesson is to practice and improve specific microskills that make up argument analysis, an assignment objective might read “After successfully completing this assignment, you will be able to identify different kinds of evidence in a psychological discussion.” Or another might read “After successfully completing this assignment, you will be able to distinguish arguments from nonarguments.” Students might demonstrate they have reached these objectives by showing the behavior of correctly labeling the kinds of evidence presented in a passage or by indicating whether an argument or merely a claim has been made. By stating objectives in the form of assessable behaviors, the instructor can test these as assessment hypotheses.

Sometimes when the goal is to teach students how to decide which CT skills are appropriate in a situation, the instructor may not want to identify specific skills. Instead, a lesson objective might read, “After successfully completing this assignment, you will be able to decide which skills and knowledge are appropriate for critically analyzing a discussion in psychology.”

3. Find opportunities to infuse CT that fit content and skill requirements of your course

To improve their CT skills, students must be given opportunities to practice them. Different courses present different opportunities for infusion and practice. Stand-alone CT courses usually provide the most opportunities to infuse CT. For example, the Frostburg State University Psychology Department has a senior seminar called “Thinking like a Psychologist” in which students complete lessons giving them practice in argument analysis, critical reading, critically evaluating information on the Internet, distinguishing science from pseudoscience, applying their knowledge and CT skills in simulations of psychological practice, and other activities.

In more typical subject-oriented courses, instructors must find specific content and types of tasks conducive to explicit CT skill instruction. For example, research methods courses present several opportunities to teach argument analysis skills. Instructors can have students critically evaluate the quality of evidence provided by studies using different research methods and designs they find in PsycINFO and Internet sources. This, in turn, could help students write better critical evaluations of research for research reports.

A cognitive psychology teacher might assign a critical evaluation of the evidence on an interesting question discussed in textbook literature reviews. For example, students might evaluate the evidence relevant to the question of whether people have flashbulb memories such as accurately remembering the 9-11 attack. This provides the opportunity to teach them that many of the studies, although informative, are quasi-experimental and cannot show causation. Or, students might analyze the arguments in a TV program such as the fascinating Nova program Kidnapped by Aliens on people who recall having been abducted by aliens.

4. Use guided practice, explicitly modeling and scaffolding CT.

Guided practice involves modeling and supporting the practice of target skills, and providing feedback on progress towards skill attainment. Research has shown that guided practice helps student more efficiently acquire thinking skills than unguided and discovery approaches (Meyer, 2004).

Instructors can model the use of CT rules, criteria, and procedures for evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions in many ways. They could provide worked examples of problems, writing samples displaying good CT, or real-world examples of good and bad thinking found in the media. They might also think out loud as they evaluate arguments in class to model the process of thinking.

To help students learn to use complex rules in thinking, instructors should initially scaffold student thinking. Scaffolding involves providing product guidelines, rules, and other frameworks to support the process of thinking. Table 1 shows guidelines like those found in Bensley (1998) describing nonscientific kinds of evidence that can support student efforts to evaluate evidence in everyday psychological discussions. Likewise, Table 2 provides guidelines like those found in Bensley (1998) and Wade and Tavris (2005) describing various kinds of scientific research methods and designs that differ in the quality of evidence they provide for psychological arguments.

In the cognitive lesson on flashbulb memory described earlier, students use the framework in Table 2 to evaluate the kinds of evidence in the literature review. Table 1 can help them evaluate the kinds of evidence found in the Nova video Kidnapped by Aliens . Specifically, they could use it to contrast scientific authority with less credible authority. The video includes statements by scientific authorities like Elizabeth Loftus based on her extensive research contrasted with the nonscientific authority of Bud Hopkins, an artist turned hypnotherapist and author of popular books on alien abduction. Loftus argues that the memories of alien abduction in the children interviewed by Hopkins were reconstructed around the suggestive interview questions he posed. Therefore, his conclusion that the children and other people in the video were recalling actual abduction experiences was based on anecdotes, unreliable self-reports, and other weak evidence.

Modeling, scaffolding, and guided practice are especially useful in helping students first acquire CT skills. After sufficient practice, however, instructors should fade these and have students do more challenging assignments without these supports to promote transfer.

5. Align assessment with practice of specific CT skills

Test questions and other assessments of performance should be similar to practice questions and problems in the skills targeted but differ in content. For example, we have developed a series of practice and quiz questions about the kinds of evidence found in Table 1 used in everyday situations but which differ in subject matter from practice to quiz. Likewise, other questions employ research evidence examples corresponding to Table 2. Questions ask students to identify kinds of evidence, evaluate the quality of the evidence, distinguish arguments from nonarguments, and find assumptions in the examples with practice examples differing in content from assessment items.

6. Provide feedback and encourage students to reflect on it

Instructors should focus feedback on the degree of attainment of CT skill objectives in the lesson or assessment. The purpose of feedback is to help students learn how to correct faulty thinking so that in the future they monitor their thinking and avoid such problems. This should increase their metacognition or awareness and control of their thinking, an important goal of CT instruction (Halpern, 1998).

Students must use their feedback for it to improve their CT skills. In the CT exercises and critical reading assignments, students receive feedback in the form of corrected responses and written feedback on open-ended questions. They should be advised that paying attention to feedback on earlier work and assessments should improve their performance on later assessments.

7. Reflect on feedback and assessment results to improve CT instruction

Instructors should use the feedback they provide to students and the results of ongoing assessments to ‘close the loop,’ that is, use these outcomes to address deficiencies in performance and improve instruction. In actual practice, teaching and assessment strategies rarely work optimally the first time. Instructors must be willing to tinker with these to make needed improvements. Reflection on reliable and valid assessment results provides a scientific means to systematically improve instruction and assessment.

Instructors may find the direct infusion approach as summarized in the seven guidelines to be efficient, especially in helping students acquire basic CT skills, as research has shown. They may especially appreciate how it allows them to take a scientific approach to the improvement of instruction. Although the direct infusion approach seems to efficiently promote acquisition of CT skills, more research is needed to find out if students transfer their skills outside of the classroom or whether this approach needs adjustment to promote transfer.

Table 1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Nonscientific Sources and Kinds of Evidence

Informal beliefs and folk theories of mind commonly assumed to be true

— is a view shared by many, not just a few people.

— is familiar and appeals to

everyday experience.

— is not based on careful,

systematic observation.

— may be biased by cultural

and social influences.

— often goes untested.

Story or example, often biographical, used to support a claim

— can vividly illustrate an ability, trait, behavior, or situation.

— provides a ‘real-world’ example.

— is not based on careful, systematic observation.

— may be unique, not repeatable, and cannot be generalized for large groups.

Reports of one’s own experience often in the form of testimonials and introspective self-reports

— tells what a person may be feeling, experiencing, or aware of at the time.

— is compelling and easily identified with.

— is often subjective and

biased.

— may be unreliable because

people are often unaware of

the real reasons for their

behaviors and experiences.

Statement made by a person or group assumed to have special knowledge or expertise

— may be true or useful when the authority has relevant knowledge or expertise.

— is convenient because acquiring one’s own knowledge and expertise takes a lot of time.

— is misleading when presumed authority does not have or pretends to have special knowledge or expertise.

— may be biased.

Table 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Scientific Research Methods/Designs Used as Sources of Evidence

Detailed description of

one or a few subjects

— provides much information about one person.

— may inform about a person with special or rare abilities, knowledge, or characteristics.

— may be unique and hard to replicate.

— may not generalize to other people.

— cannot show cause and effect.

Observations of behavior made in the field or natural environment

— allows observations to be readily generalized to real world.

— can be a source of hypotheses.

— allows little control of extraneous variables.

— cannot test treatments.

— cannot show cause and effect.

A method like a questionnaire that allows many questions to be asked

— allows economical collection of much data.

— allows for study of many different questions at once.

— may have problems of self

reports such as dishonesty,

forgetting, and misrepresentation of self.

— may involve biased sampling.

A method for finding a quantitative relationship between variables

— allows researcher to calculate

the strength and direction of

relation between variables.

— can use it to make predictions.

— does not allow random assignment of participants or much control of subject variables.

— cannot test treatments.

— cannot show cause and effect.

A method for comparing

treatment conditions without random assignment

— allows comparison of treatments.

— allows some control of extraneous variables.

— does not allow random assign-

ment of participants or much

control of subject variables.

— Cannot show cause and effect.

A method for comparing

Treatment conditions in which variables can be controlled through random assignment

— allows true manipulation

of treatment conditions.

— allows random assignment and much control of extraneous variables.

— can show cause and effect.

— cannot manipulate and test some variables.

— may control variables and conditions so much that they become artificial and

not like the ‘real world’.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al., (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 4 , 1102–1134.

Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology , 22(1), 6–7.

Bensley, D.A. (1998). Critical thinking in psychology: A unified skills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bensley, D.A. (2002). Science and pseudoscience: A critical thinking primer. In M. Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. (pp. 195–203). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC–CLIO.

Bensley, D.A. (2006). Why great thinkers sometimes fail to think critically. Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 47–52.

Bensley, D.A. (2008). Can you learn to think more like a psychologist? The Psychologist, 21, 128–129.

Bensley, D.A., Crowe, D., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. (in press). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology .

Bensley, D.A. & Haynes, C. (1995). The acquisition of general purpose strategic knowledge for argumentation. Teaching of Psychology, 22 , 41–45.

Beyer, B.K. (1997). Improving student thinking: A comprehensive approach . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chance, P. (1986) Thinking in the classroom: A review of programs . New York: Instructors College Press.

Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. F. Sternberg (Eds.). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: Freeman.

Halonen, J.S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22 , 75–81.

Halonen, J.S., Appleby, D.C., Brewer, C.L., Buskist, W., Gillem, A. R., Halpern, D. F., et al. (APA Task Force on Undergraduate Major Competencies). (2002) Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcomes: A report. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ed/pcue/reports.html .

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist , 53 , 449–455.

Halpern, D.F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2 , 53–70.

Meyer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist , 59 , 14–19.

Nieto, A.M., & Saiz, C. (2008). Evaluation of Halpern’s “structural component” for improving critical thinking. The Spanish Journal of Psychology , 11 ( 1 ), 266–274.

Penningroth, S.L., Despain, L.H., & Gray, M.J. (2007). A course designed to improve psychological critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology , 34 , 153–157.

Rotton, J., & Kelly, I. (1985). Much ado about the full moon: A meta-analysis of lunar-lunacy research. Psychological Bulletin , 97 , 286–306.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Solon, T. (2007). Generic critical thinking infusion and course content learning in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology , 34(2), 972–987.

Stanovich, K.E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology . (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Critical thinking in psychology: It really is critical. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology. (pp. 289–296) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wade, C., & Tavris, C. (2005) Invitation to psychology. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walberg, H.J. (2006). Improving educational productivity: A review of extant research. In R. F. Subotnik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), The scientific basis of educational productivity (pp. 103–159). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Williams, R.L. (1999). Operational definitions and assessment of higher-order cognitive constructs. Educational Psychology Review , 11 , 411–427.

Excellent article.

Interesting and helpful!

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

D. Alan Bensley is Professor of Psychology at Frostburg State University. He received his Master’s and PhD degrees in cognitive psychology from Rutgers University. His main teaching and research interests concern the improvement of critical thinking and other cognitive skills. He coordinates assessment for his department and is developing a battery of instruments to assess critical thinking in psychology. He can be reached by email at [email protected] Association for Psychological Science December 2010 — Vol. 23, No. 10

Student Notebook: Five Tips for Working with Teaching Assistants in Online Classes

Sarah C. Turner suggests it’s best to follow the golden rule: Treat your TA’s time as you would your own.

Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science offers advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been

European Psychology Learning and Teaching Conference

The School of Education of the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg is hosting the next European Psychology Learning and Teaching (EUROPLAT) Conference on September 18–20, 2017 in Salzburg, Austria. The main theme of the conference

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	30 minutes	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.

Cookie	Duration	Description
AWSELBCORS	5 minutes	This cookie is used by Elastic Load Balancing from Amazon Web Services to effectively balance load on the servers.

Cookie	Duration	Description
at-rand	never	AddThis sets this cookie to track page visits, sources of traffic and share counts.
CONSENT	2 years	YouTube sets this cookie via embedded youtube-videos and registers anonymous statistical data.
uvc	1 year 27 days	Set by addthis.com to determine the usage of addthis.com service.
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_3507334_1	1 minute	Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

Cookie	Duration	Description
loc	1 year 27 days	AddThis sets this geolocation cookie to help understand the location of users who share the information.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	A cookie set by YouTube to measure bandwidth that determines whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC	session	YSC cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt-remote-device-id	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the video preferences of the user using embedded YouTube video.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.
yt.innertube::requests	never	This cookie, set by YouTube, registers a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

A conceptual framework for developing a critical thinking self-assessment scale

Affiliation.

1 South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, USA.
PMID: 23402245
DOI: 10.3928/01484834-20120215-01

Nurses must be talented critical thinkers to cope with the challenges related to the ever-changing health care system, population trends, and extended role expectations. Several countries now recognize critical thinking skills (CTS) as an expected outcome of nursing education programs. Critical thinking has been defined in multiple ways by philosophers, critical thinking experts, and educators. Nursing experts conceptualize critical thinking as a process involving cognitive and affective domains of reasoning. Nurse educators are often challenged with teaching and measuring CTS because of their latent nature and the lack of a uniform definition of the concept. In this review of the critical thinking literature, we examine various definitions, identify a set of constructs that define critical thinking, and suggest a conceptual framework on which to base a self-assessment scale for measuring CTS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Research Materials

NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Critical Thinking Self Assessment

Critical thinking self-assessment is an evaluation of one's ability to think critically and analyze a situation. it seeks to understand how someone reasons and makes decisions, as well as their ability to think objectively and logically. it usually involves a series of questions or activities designed to measure the individual's skills in areas such as problem-solving, decision-making, creativity, and analytical ability. .

2 minutes to complete

Eligibility

Eligibility to complete a Critical Thinking Self Assessment includes being at least 18 years of age, having a basic understanding of logical reasoning and critical thinking concepts, and having access to a computer or other device with internet access.

Questions for Critical Thinking Self Assessment

I look for evidence before believing claims

I consider issues from different perspectives

I feel confident to present my own arguments even when it challenges the views of others

I actively seek evidence that might counter what Ialready know

My opinions are influenced by evidence rather than justpersonal experience and emotion

If I am not sure about something, I will researchto find out more

I know how to search for reliable information to develop my knowledge of a topic

Assessments Similar to Critical Thinking Self Assessment

Critical Thinking Assessment Tool
Critical Thinking Skills Assessment
Critical Thinking Evaluation Form
Critical Thinking Skills Survey
Critical Thinking Ability Test
Critical Thinking Competency Test

Here are some FAQs and additional information on Critical Thinking Self Assessment

What is critical thinking, critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas. it involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings. critical thinking also involves analyzing and synthesizing information from various sources in order to make informed decisions and come to sound conclusions., how can i assess my critical thinking skills, there are a variety of self-assessment tools available to help you assess your critical thinking skills. these tools typically involve answering questions about your approach to problem-solving and decision-making., how can i improve my critical thinking skills, improving your critical thinking skills requires actively engaging in activities that challenge you to think critically. examples of activities that can help you develop your critical thinking skills include: reading, discussing, and debating topics with others; taking time to reflect on your thoughts and ideas; and questioning assumptions and biases., want to use this template, loved by people at home and at work.

What's next? Try out templates like Critical Thinking Self Assessment

1000+ templates, 50+ categories.

Want to create secure online forms and surveys?

Join blocksurvey..

Learning Environments
Teaching, learning and assessment

Self-assessment

Self-assessment is a formative assessment approach, which moves the responsibility for learning from the educator to the student.

What is it?

Self-assessment is a learning activity that gives students a structure to generate feedback on their own outputs or skills. It is a great way to prompt students to think critically about their work and make them aware of their own learning. Regular self-assessment engages students in metacognition and supports them in becoming self-regulated learners. In a task-specific context, students can assess their draft or a component of a larger task. This will help students to improve their understanding of the task at hand and set themselves up well for the upcoming summative assessment. Assessment rubrics can provide a structure to a self-assessment task and prompt students to generate self-feedback.

Why is it useful?

Benefits for students.

Gives students a chance to practise in a no-stakes environment and with little to no social pressure
Promotes active engagement with assessment criteria that way developing their understanding of intended learning outcomes
Encourages self-reflection and metacognition and, in turn, develops students’ capacity for independent learning.

Benefits for educators

Allows you to clarify assessment instructions by giving students a chance to have a go at the task and ask questions based on their first attempt.

How do I implement it?

To implement self-assessment in your teaching, try these strategies:

Engage students in self-assessment by highlighting its value to their learning. It is important to introduce self-assessment as an opportunity for students to improve their understanding of the assessment task and the quality of their work.
Provide opportunities for students to self-assess at various stages of the assessment task. For example, when working on a research essay, students can be first prompted to self-assess their argument and/or plan before assessing the full draft. This will make self-assessment a regular practice and provide the necessary scaffolding for students to gradually get used to the self-assessment protocols.
Prepare students to self-assess by stepping them through the process. A task-specific assessment rubric will help structure self-assessment and guide students through the process. Having a rubric for self-assessment will allow for students to generate self-feedback and translate it into actionable steps to work on in preparation for the summative assessment. For example, if during self-assessment a student identifies flaws in their essay argument, a well-designed analytic rubric will guide them towards actionable steps to improve their argument.
Use assessment exemplars to model self-assessment. Exemplars can be a great way to introduce students to the expectations for self-assessment. Before performing a rubric-referenced self-assessment, students can be asked to assess the exemplar based on the same rubric they will be later using to assess their own work.

Supporting technologies

FeedbackFruits is a user-friendly tool that can facilitate both self-assessment of work and self-assessment of skill. It makes it easy to structure a purposeful self-assessment activity where students grade themselves on a set of pre-determined criteria. Additionally, FeedbackFruits provides scaffolded assessment options where self-assessment can be added as a pre and/or post reflection step.
PebblePad offers opportunities for self-assessment as part of a larger task, iterative task, such as a portfolio, a blog, a placement, or a workbook. For example, rubrics, checklists, and Likert scales can be integrated into a workbook or a placement activity for a student to check their progress or measure the attainment of skill.
The University’s own Assessment Literacy Tool is an online platform for students to engage with sample assignments and compare their marking decisions with the evaluations provided by the teaching team. This can serve as a perfect preparation for self-assessment. The tool allows you to upload a rubric for students to assess a sample assignment against. Importantly, the tool also gets students to justify their selection. Upon providing their justifications and rubric selections, students can compare their responses to the teaching team’s assessment. Submit a ServiceNow request to add the tool to your subject’s LMS.
Bourke, R. (2018). Self-assessment to incite learning in higher education: developing ontological awareness . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 43 (5), 827-839.
Learning Environments, University of Melbourne (2022, September 15). Reflection and consolidation activities in BSL .
Learning Management System, University of Melbourne . FeedbackFruits .
Learning Management System, University of Melbourne . PebblePad .
Yan, Z., and Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 42 (8), 1247-1262.
Assessment literacy tool resource .

This page was last updated on 11 Apr 2024.

Please report any errors on this page to our website maintainers

Support centre

ADEA Connect

Communities
Career Opportunities
New Thinking
ADEA Governance
House of Delegates
Board of Directors
Advisory Committees
Sections and Special Interest Groups
Governance Documents and Publications
Dental Faculty Code of Conduct
ADEAGies Foundation
About ADEAGies Foundation
ADEAGies Newsroom
Gies Awards
Press Center
Strategic Directions
2023 Annual Report
ADEA Membership
Institutions
Faculty and Staff
Individuals
Corporations
ADEA Members
Predoctoral Dental
Allied Dental
Nonfederal Advanced Dental
U.S. Federal Dental
Students, Residents and Fellows
Corporate Members
Member Directory
Directory of Institutional Members (DIM)
5 Questions With
ADEA Member to Member Recruitment
Students, Residents, and Fellows
Information For
Deans & Program Directors
Current Students & Residents
Prospective Students
Educational Meetings
Upcoming Events
2025 Annual Session & Exhibition
eLearn Webinars
Past Events
Professional Development
eLearn Micro-credentials
Leadership Institute
Leadership Institute Alumni Association (LIAA)
Faculty Development Programs
ADEA Scholarships, Awards and Fellowships
Academic Fellowship
For Students
For Dental Educators
For Leadership Institute Fellows
Teaching Resources
ADEA weTeach®
MedEdPORTAL

Critical Thinking Skills Toolbox

Resources for Teaching
Policy Topics
Task Force Report
Opioid Epidemic
Financing Dental Education
Holistic Review
Sex-based Health Differences
Access, Diversity and Inclusion
ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education
Tool Resources
Campus Liaisons
Policy Resources
Policy Publications
Holistic Review Workshops
Leading Conversations Webinar Series
Collaborations
Summer Health Professions Education Program
Minority Dental Faculty Development Program
Federal Advocacy
Dental School Legislators
Policy Letters and Memos
Legislative Process
Federal Advocacy Toolkit
State Information
Opioid Abuse
Tracking Map
Loan Forgiveness Programs
State Advocacy Toolkit
Canadian Information
Dental Schools
Provincial Information
ADEA Advocate
Books and Guides
About ADEA Publications
2023-24 Official Guide
Dental School Explorer
Dental Education Trends
Ordering Publications
ADEA Bookstore
Newsletters
About ADEA Newsletters
Bulletin of Dental Education
Charting Progress
Subscribe to Newsletter
Journal of Dental Education
Subscriptions
Submissions FAQs
Data, Analysis and Research
Educational Institutions
Applicants, Enrollees and Graduates
Dental School Seniors
ADEA AADSAS® (Dental School)
AADSAS Applicants
Admissions Officers
Health Professions Advisors
ADEA CAAPID® (International Dentists)
CAAPID Applicants
Program Finder
ADEA DHCAS® (Dental Hygiene Programs)
DHCAS Applicants
Program Directors
ADEA PASS® (Advanced Dental Education Programs)
PASS Applicants
PASS Evaluators
DentEd Jobs
Information For:

Introduction
Overview of Critical Thinking Skills
Teaching Observations
Avenues for Research

CTS Tools for Faculty and Student Assessment

Critical Thinking and Assessment
Conclusions
Bibliography
Helpful Links
Appendix A. Author's Impressions of Vignettes

A number of critical thinking skills inventories and measures have been developed:

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) Cornell Critical Thinking Test California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) Professional Judgment Rating Form (PJRF) Teaching for Thinking Student Course Evaluation Form Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric Peer Evaluation of Group Presentation Form

Excluding the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Facione and Facione developed the critical thinking skills instruments listed above. However, it is important to point out that all of these measures are of questionable utility for dental educators because their content is general rather than dental education specific. (See Critical Thinking and Assessment .)

Table 7. Purposes of Critical Thinking Skills Instruments


Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal- FS (WGCTA-FS)	Assesses participants' skills in five subscales: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments.
Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT)	Measures test takers' skills in induction, credibility, prediction and experimental planning, fallacies, and deduction.
California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)	Assesses test takers' consistent internal motivations to engage in critical thinking skills.
California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)	Provides objective measures of participants' skills in six subscales (analysis, inference, explanation, interpretation, self-regulation, and evaluation) and an overall score for critical thinking.
The Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT)	Assesses critical thinking skills of health science professionals and students. Measures analysis, evaluation, inference, and inductive and deductive reasoning.
Professional Judgment Rating Form (PJRF)	Measures extent to which novices approach problems with CTS. Can be used to assess effectiveness of training programs for individual or group evaluation.
Teaching for Thinking Student Course Evaluation Form	Used by students to rate the perceived critical thinking skills content in secondary and postsecondary classroom experiences.
Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric	Used by professors and students to rate learning outcomes or presentations on critical thinking skills and dispositions. The rubric can capture the type of target behaviors, qualities, or products that professors are interested in evaluating.
Peer Evaluation of Group Presentation Form	A common set of criteria used by peers and the instructor to evaluate student-led group presentations.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability means that individual scores from an instrument should be the same or nearly the same from one administration of the instrument to another. The instrument can be assumed to be free of bias and measurement error (68). Alpha coefficients are often used to report an estimate of internal consistency. Scores of .70 or higher indicate that the instrument has high reliability when the stakes are moderate. Scores of .80 and higher are appropriate when the stakes are high.

Validity means that individual scores from a particular instrument are meaningful, make sense, and allow researchers to draw conclusions from the sample to the population that is being studied (69) Researchers often refer to "content" or "face" validity. Content validity or face validity is the extent to which questions on an instrument are representative of the possible questions that a researcher could ask about that particular content or skills.

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-FS (WGCTA-FS)

The WGCTA-FS is a 40-item inventory created to replace Forms A and B of the original test, which participants reported was too long.70 This inventory assesses test takers' skills in:

(a) Inference: the extent to which the individual recognizes whether assumptions are clearly stated (b) Recognition of assumptions: whether an individual recognizes whether assumptions are clearly stated (c) Deduction: whether an individual decides if certain conclusions follow the information provided (d) Interpretation: whether an individual considers evidence provided and determines whether generalizations from data are warranted (e) Evaluation of arguments: whether an individual distinguishes strong and relevant arguments from weak and irrelevant arguments

Researchers investigated the reliability and validity of the WGCTA-FS for subjects in academic fields. Participants included 586 university students. Internal consistencies for the total WGCTA-FS among students majoring in psychology, educational psychology, and special education, including undergraduates and graduates, ranged from .74 to .92. The correlations between course grades and total WGCTA-FS scores for all groups ranged from .24 to .62 and were significant at the p < .05 of p < .01. In addition, internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the WGCTA-FS have been measured as .81. The WGCTA-FS was found to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring critical thinking (71).

Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT)

There are two forms of the CCTT, X and Z. Form X is for students in grades 4-14. Form Z is for advanced and gifted high school students, undergraduate and graduate students, and adults. Reliability estimates for Form Z range from .49 to .87 across the 42 groups who have been tested. Measures of validity were computed in standard conditions, roughly defined as conditions that do not adversely affect test performance. Correlations between Level Z and other measures of critical thinking are about .50.72 The CCTT is reportedly as predictive of graduate school grades as the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), a measure of aptitude, and the Miller Analogies Test, and tends to correlate between .2 and .4.73

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)

Facione and Facione have reported significant relationships between the CCTDI and the CCTST. When faculty focus on critical thinking in planning curriculum development, modest cross-sectional and longitudinal gains have been demonstrated in students' CTS.74 The CCTDI consists of seven subscales and an overall score. The recommended cut-off score for each scale is 40, the suggested target score is 50, and the maximum score is 60. Scores below 40 on a specific scale are weak in that CT disposition, and scores above 50 on a scale are strong in that dispositional aspect. An overall score of 280 shows serious deficiency in disposition toward CT, while an overall score of 350 (while rare) shows across the board strength. The seven subscales are analyticity, self-confidence, inquisitiveness, maturity, open-mindedness, systematicity, and truth seeking (75).

In a study of instructional strategies and their influence on the development of critical thinking among undergraduate nursing students, Tiwari, Lai, and Yuen found that, compared with lecture students, PBL students showed significantly greater improvement in overall CCTDI (p = .0048), Truth seeking (p = .0008), Analyticity (p =.0368) and Critical Thinking Self-confidence (p =.0342) subscales from the first to the second time points; in overall CCTDI (p = .0083), Truth seeking (p= .0090), and Analyticity (p =.0354) subscales from the second to the third time points; and in Truth seeking (p = .0173) and Systematicity (p = .0440) subscales scores from the first to the fourth time points (76). California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)

Studies have shown the California Critical Thinking Skills Test captured gain scores in students' critical thinking over one quarter or one semester. Multiple health science programs have demonstrated significant gains in students' critical thinking using site-specific curriculum. Studies conducted to control for re-test bias showed no testing effect from pre- to post-test means using two independent groups of CT students. Since behavioral science measures can be impacted by social-desirability bias-the participant's desire to answer in ways that would please the researcher-researchers are urged to have participants take the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale simultaneously when measuring pre- and post-test changes in critical thinking skills. The CCTST is a 34-item instrument. This test has been correlated with the CCTDI with a sample of 1,557 nursing education students. Results show that, r = .201, and the relationship between the CCTST and the CCTDI is significant at p< .001. Significant relationships between CCTST and other measures including the GRE total, GRE-analytic, GRE-Verbal, GRE-Quantitative, the WGCTA, and the SAT Math and Verbal have also been reported. The two forms of the CCTST, A and B, are considered statistically significant. Depending on the testing, context KR-20 alphas range from .70 to .75. The newest version is CCTST Form 2000, and depending on the testing context, KR-20 alphas range from .78-.84.77

The Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT)

Items within this inventory cover the domain of CT cognitive skills identified by a Delphi group of experts whose work resulted in the development of the CCTDI and CCTST. This test measures health science undergraduate and graduate students' CTS. Although test items are set in health sciences and clinical practice contexts, test takers are not required to have discipline-specific health sciences knowledge. For this reason, the test may have limited utility in dental education (78).

Preliminary estimates of internal consistency show that overall KR-20 coefficients range from .77 to .83.79 The instrument has moderate reliability on analysis and inference subscales, although the factor loadings appear adequate. The low K-20 coefficients may be result of small sample size, variance in item response, or both (see following table).

Table 8. Estimates of Internal Consistency and Factor Loading by Subscale for HSRT


Inductive	.76	.332-.769
Deductive	.71	.366-.579
Analysis	.54	.369-.599
Inference	.52	.300-.664
Evaluation	.77	.359-.758

Professional Judgment Rating Form (PJRF)

The scale consists of two sets of descriptors. The first set relates primarily to the attitudinal (habits of mind) dimension of CT. The second set relates primarily to CTS.

A single rater should know the student well enough to respond to at least 17 or the 20 descriptors with confidence. If not, the validity of the ratings may be questionable. If a single rater is used and ratings over time show some consistency, comparisons between ratings may be used to assess changes. If more than one rater is used, then inter-rater reliability must be established among the raters to yield meaningful results. While the PJRF can be used to assess the effectiveness of training programs for individuals or groups, the evaluation of participants' actual skills are best measured by an objective tool such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test.

Teaching for Thinking Student Course Evaluation Form

Course evaluations typically ask for responses of "agree" or "disagree" to items focusing on teacher behavior. Typically the questions do not solicit information about student learning. Because contemporary thinking about curriculum is interested in student learning, this form was developed to address differences in pedagogy and subject matter, learning outcomes, student demographics, and course level characteristic of education today. This form also grew out of a "one size fits all" approach to teaching evaluations and a recognition of the limitations of this practice. It offers information about how a particular course enhances student knowledge, sensitivities, and dispositions. The form gives students an opportunity to provide feedback that can be used to improve instruction.

Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric

This assessment tool uses a four-point classification schema that lists particular opposing reasoning skills for select criteria. One advantage of a rubric is that it offers clearly delineated components and scales for evaluating outcomes. This rubric explains how students' CTS will be evaluated, and it provides a consistent framework for the professor as evaluator. Users can add or delete any of the statements to reflect their institution's effort to measure CT. Like most rubrics, this form is likely to have high face validity since the items tend to be relevant or descriptive of the target concept. This rubric can be used to rate student work or to assess learning outcomes. Experienced evaluators should engage in a process leading to consensus regarding what kinds of things should be classified and in what ways.80 If used improperly or by inexperienced evaluators, unreliable results may occur.

Peer Evaluation of Group Presentation Form

This form offers a common set of criteria to be used by peers and the instructor to evaluate student-led group presentations regarding concepts, analysis of arguments or positions, and conclusions.81 Users have an opportunity to rate the degree to which each component was demonstrated. Open-ended questions give users an opportunity to cite examples of how concepts, the analysis of arguments or positions, and conclusions were demonstrated.

Table 8. Proposed Universal Criteria for Evaluating Students' Critical Thinking Skills

Accuracy

Adequacy

Clarity

Completeness

Consistency

Depth

Fairness

Logic

Precision

Realism

Relevance

Significance

Specificity

Aside from the use of the above-mentioned assessment tools, Dexter et al. recommended that all schools develop universal criteria for evaluating students' development of critical thinking skills (82).

Their rationale for the proposed criteria is that if faculty give feedback using these criteria, graduates will internalize these skills and use them to monitor their own thinking and practice (see Table 4).

Application Information
ADEA GoDental
ADEA AADSAS
ADEA CAAPID
Events & Professional Development
Scholarships, Awards & Fellowships
Publications & Data
Official Guide to Dental Schools
Data, Analysis & Research
Follow Us On:

ADEA Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Website Feedback
Website Help

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

Developing technical and problem-solving skills
Engaging in more active listening
Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
Seeking out more diversity of thought
Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

What information should be included?
Which information resources should the author look to?
What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
What is the most effective way to show information?
How should the report be organized?
How should it be designed?
What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

IMAGES

Critical Thinking Skills Assessment Sheet
Self Assessments, Creative & Critical Thinking, BC Core Competencies
[PDF] Self-Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills in EFL Writing
Creative Self-Assessment with 6 Thinking Hats-Self-Reflection, Critical
Critical thinking assessment
BC Core Competencies Critical Thinking Self Assessment for Intermediate

VIDEO

Core Critical thinking Skills
CRITICAL THINKING STRATEGIES YOU CAN USE
Mastering Self-Awareness: Key Skills for Personal Growth
How ‘Flight Takes A Break Mid-Video’ Became His Biggest Meme
Product feature update: Skills self-assessment
How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

COMMENTS

PDF Student Self-Assessment Critical Thinking Questionnaire
Student Self-Assessment Critical Thinking Questionnaire The Student Self-Assessment Critical Thinking Questionnaire is a tool which has been designed to help students to assess their performance as critical thinkers. It is used after an activity or a project and can serve as a self-reflection tool or as a starting point for class discussion.
Critical Thinking Test: Free Practice Questions
Take our free critical thinking test with answers and full explanations to help you improve your performance at interview.
Critical Thinking test
This Critical Thinking test measures your ability to think critically and draw logical conclusions based on written information. Critical Thinking tests are often used in job assessments in the legal sector to assess a candidate's analytical critical thinking skills. A well known example of a critical thinking test is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.
Structures for Student Self-Assessment
Instruction that fosters a disciplined, thinking mind, on the other hand, is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Each step in the process of thinking critically is tied to a self-reflexive step of self-assessment. As a critical thinker, I do not simply state the problem; I state it and assess it for its clarity.
The Power of Reflection and Self-Assessment in Student Learning
It involves developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and the capacity for self-improvement. Reflection and self-assessment are vital in deepening understanding, fostering growth, and enhancing student learning.
Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment
Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment The purpose of assessment in instruction is improvement. The purpose of assessing instruction for critical thinking is improving the teaching of discipline-based thinking (historical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc.) It is to improve students' abilities to think their way through content using disciplined skill in reasoning. The more ...
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking involves rigorously and skilfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions and beliefs. It's a useful skill in the workplace and in life. You'll need to be curious and creative to explore alternative possibilities, but rational to apply logic, and self-aware to identify when ...
CRITICAL THINKING SELF-ASSESSMENT
CRITICAL THINKING SELF-ASSESSMENT Have a go at this self-evaluation to assess your critical thinking skills.
Critical Thinking Inventories
The Critical Thinking Inventories (CTIs) are short, Likert-item instruments that assess a course learning environment as it relates to critical thinking skill-building. There are two separate instruments: This inventory asks students to report their perception of critical thinking skill building as facilitated by their instructor in a specific ...
PDF Critical Thinking Learning Program Self-Assessment
Critical Thinking How do you make decisions? You can use systematic approaches for gathering and analyzing information to make well-informed and timely decisions. These approaches are collectively called critical thinking. The learning program focuses on four concentration areas: Decision Making, Analyzing, Problem Solving and Strategizing.
Are You Good at Critical Thinking? [Self-Assessment Test]
Take our self-assessment test to determine your level of critical thinking skills - find out if you have what it takes to analyze complex information and make sound decisions.
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
Learn about critical thinking skills and how they can help you reach your professional goals, and review our six main critical thinking skills and examples.
PDF MEASURING STUDENT SUCCESS SKILLS: A REVIEW OF ...
educational tradition of critical thinking stems from the work of Benjamin Bloom. Educators have long relied on Bloom's taxonomy of hierarchical cognitive processing skills for both teaching and assessing higher-order thinking skills. Factual recall and other knowledge-level cognitive processes sit at the bottom of the taxonomy, with the three highest levels—analysis, synth
Development and Validation of a Critical Thinking Assessment-Scale
This study presents and validates the psychometric characteristics of a short form of the Critical Thinking Self-assessment Scale (CTSAS). The original CTSAS was composed of six subscales representing the six components of Facione's conceptualisation of critical thinking. The CTSAS short form kept the same structures and reduced the number of items from 115 in the original version, to 60 ...
Critical Thinking: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
Critical thinking skills are an essential aspect of an employee's evaluation: the ability to solve problems, analyze situations, and make informed decisions is crucial for the success of any organization. Questions that can help you determine an employee's rating for critical thinking: Does the employee consistently analyze data and information to identify patterns and trends?...
Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and
Abstract Critical thinking is one of the most important skills deemed necessary for college graduates to become effective contributors in the global workforce. The first part of this article provides a comprehensive review of its definitions by major frameworks in higher education and the workforce, existing assessments and their psychometric qualities, and challenges surrounding the design ...
A Brief Guide for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in
Directly infusing CT skills into course work involves targeting specific CT skills, making CT rules, criteria, and methods explicit, providing guided practice in the form of exercises focused on assessing skills, and giving feedback on practice and assessments.
Fostering and assessing student critical thinking: From theory to
In an age of innovation and digitalisation, critical thinking has become one of the most valued skills in the labour market. This paper shows how teachers can empower students to develop their students' critical thinking. After recalling why critical thinking matters for democracy and the economy, a definition of critical thinking is outlined.
A conceptual framework for developing a critical thinking self ...
In this review of the critical thinking literature, we examine various definitions, identify a set of constructs that define critical thinking, and suggest a conceptual framework on which to base a self-assessment scale for measuring CTS.
Critical Thinking Self Assessment
Critical thinking self-assessment is an evaluation of one's ability to think critically and analyze a situation. It seeks to understand how someone reasons and makes decisions, as well as their ability to think objectively and logically. It usually involves a series of questions or activities designed to measure the individual's skills in areas ...
Self-assessment
Self-assessment is a learning activity that gives students a structure to generate feedback on their own outputs or skills. It is a great way to prompt students to think critically about their work and make them aware of their own learning. Regular self-assessment engages students in metacognition and supports them in becoming self-regulated ...
CTS Tools for Faculty and Student Assessment
Excluding the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Facione and Facione developed the critical thinking skills instruments listed above. However, it is important to point out that all of these measures are of questionable utility for dental educators because their content is general rather than dental education specific. (See Critical Thinking and ...
Using Critical Thinking in Essays and other Assignments
Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

What is the Critical Thinking Test?

Critical Thinking test

Critical Thinking test reviews

Need more practice?

Instructions Critical Thinking test

Is this a strong or weak argument?

Is the assumption made from the text?

Does the conclusion follow the statements?

To what extent is this conclusion true, based on the given text?

Does the conclusion follow, based on the given text?

Search form

Reflection Involves Contemplation and Self-Analysis

Self-Assessment Follows Self-Reflection

Combine the Two to Develop Critical Thinking Skills

Students Begin Looking at the Process, Rather than the Outcome

Motivation and Engagement Come Through Reflection and Self-Assessment

EW Lesson Plans

EW Professional Development

Translate this page from English...

Critical Thinking Testing and Assessment

Consequential Validity

Ideas to Action (i2a)

Quick Links to Resources:

What are the Critical Thinking Inventories?

Why were the CTIs developed?

How can I easily administer the LCTI to my students?

How do I complete the TCTI that is designed specifically for instructors?

How do I review my results from students?

Where can I find additional information on the use of the CTIs?

Who can I contact for additional information on the CTIs?

Are You Good at Critical Thinking? [Self-Assessment Test]

Self Assessment Test

Interpreting Your Results

21-40 Points

41-60 Points

5 Quick Tips to Become Better at Critical Thinking

1. Clarify Your Thinking

2. Practice Active Listening

3. Ask Questions

4. Evaluate the Evidence

5. Practice Problem-Solving

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

3.3. Multigroup Invariance

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Further Information

Critical Thinking: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples

Performance Review Phrases and Paragraphs Examples For Critical Thinking

Phrases Examples

Paragraph Example 1

Paragraph Example 2

Paragraph Example 3

4 – Exceeds Expectations

3 – Meets Expectations

2 – Needs Improvement

1 – Unacceptable

A Brief Guide for Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking in Psychology

About the Author

Student Notebook: Five Tips for Working with Teaching Assistants in Online Classes

Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science

European Psychology Learning and Teaching Conference

Privacy Overview

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

A conceptual framework for developing a critical thinking self-assessment scale

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Other Literature Sources

Research Materials

Critical Thinking Self Assessment

Eligibility

Questions for Critical Thinking Self Assessment

Assessments Similar to Critical Thinking Self Assessment

Here are some FAQs and additional information on Critical Thinking Self Assessment

What's next? Try out templates like Critical Thinking Self Assessment