View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale: Design and Validation in a Colombian Population

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale: Design and Validation in a Colombian Population
Language: English
Authors: María-Paula Rodríguez-Rojas, Ana-María Ramírez-Segura, Pedro Valenzuela-Mora, Julien Dampuré, Fernando Riveros Munévar (ORCID 0000-0002-0414-674X)
Source: SAGE Open. 2024 14(4).
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Critical Thinking, Measures (Individuals), Test Construction, Test Validity, Foreign Countries, Factor Analysis, Test Reliability, Spanish, English, Young Adults, Adults, Psychometrics
Geographic Terms: Colombia
DOI: 10.1177/21582440241297418
ISSN: 2158-2440
Abstract: Critical thinking stands out as one of the most important cognitive abilities needed for effective adaptation to a knowledge-based society in the 21st century. Despite its significance, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the conceptual and methodological frameworks for measuring it. This study aimed to design and validate a comprehensive assessment scale for critical thinking. A specification table was constructed based on the critical thinking components agreed upon in the current literature, from which corresponding items were formulated and subsequently validated by expert judges. Following adjustments to the test, 258 Colombian participants completed it. Sample adequacy (KMO), Bartlett's sphericity, and collinearity were confirmed, and the results underwent exploratory factor analysis. Reliability analysis was conducted using McDonald's [omega], Cronbach's [alpha], Guttman's [lambda]6, and Greatest Lower Bound (GLB) statistics. The final test comprised 17 items organized into 2 constituent factors, demonstrating robust content and internal structure validity, as well as high levels of precision and internal consistency (overall GLB of 0.93). The Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES) exhibits validity and reliability for use within the Colombian population. Its adaptation for other contexts and countries, both Spanish and English-speaking, is recommended. The Spanish version, along with the validated English version for potential adaptations, and scoring norms are provided in the attached documents.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1456439
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEq9-IZxZJ5_dRVmH-8jUjCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMl8EwBTh9Lj-p2A-AIBEICBmm6jAFbfjdCQwDOuqz4eq-vtKdEHWTcJue8shx4SOvjxhM5iCTez9xeME69_JoZg5s_76aPhl5ow_3kEkbIp5RZsdAzP1ZL8FjZD3-HXHlBO_5A5xIV215UqH8dV41vXxlQafVA1i5K_m4pqrwSknrt2QuPTyFRjkl3ekGGglI5PH3EqTYa78x8y5CraGzv0Y2Pdm0_2l2u-iRc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181917620;[kbz6]01oct.24;2025Jan01.07:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181917620-1">Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale: Design and Validation in a Colombian Population </title> <p>Critical thinking stands out as one of the most important cognitive abilities needed for effective adaptation to a knowledge-based society in the 21st century. Despite its significance, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the conceptual and methodological frameworks for measuring it. This study aimed to design and validate a comprehensive assessment scale for critical thinking. A specification table was constructed based on the critical thinking components agreed upon in the current literature, from which corresponding items were formulated and subsequently validated by expert judges. Following adjustments to the test, 258 Colombian participants completed it. Sample adequacy (KMO), Bartlett's sphericity, and collinearity were confirmed, and the results underwent exploratory factor analysis. Reliability analysis was conducted using McDonald's ω, Cronbach's α, Guttman's λ6, and Greatest Lower Bound (GLB) statistics. The final test comprised 17 items organized into 2 constituent factors, demonstrating robust content and internal structure validity, as well as high levels of precision and internal consistency (overall GLB of.93). The Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES) exhibits validity and reliability for use within the Colombian population. Its adaptation for other contexts and countries, both Spanish and English-speaking, is recommended. The Spanish version, along with the validated English version for potential adaptations, and scoring norms are provided in the attached documents.</p> <p>Plain language summary: Scale to evaluate critical thinking Critical thinking is one of the most important cognitive skills, but there is no complete instrument for its evaluation. Therefore, this study aimed to design and validate a comprehensive evaluation scale for critical thinking. A table of contents of the components of critical thinking was constructed, the items were designed and validated by expert judges. After adjustments to the test, 258 Colombian participants answered it and validity and reliability analyzes were carried out. The final test was composed of 17 items organized into 2 constituent factors, demonstrating strong content and internal structural validity, as well as high levels of precision and internal consistency (overall GLB of.93). The Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES) is a test with high validity and reliability for use in the Colombian population. Its adaptation is recommended for other contexts and countries, both Spanish and English speaking. The Spanish version, along with the validated English version for possible adaptations and scoring standards, are provided in the attached documents.</p> <p>Keywords: critical thinking; reliability and validity; research methods; social sciences; measurement and scaling methods; educational measurement & assessment; education; self-regulation</p> <p>Critical thinking (CT) stands as a fundamental cognitive capacity essential for successful integration into contemporary knowledge societies of the 21st century ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref3">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref4">61</reflink>]). It entails developing robust decision-making and problem-solving skills applicable in diverse practical contexts within an increasingly complex environment, while also addressing significant issues within specific disciplinary domains ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref7">42</reflink>]). Recent studies highlight that good critical thinkers demonstrate better decisions-making capabilities, even under pressure ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]); exhibit fewer cognitive biases ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]); engage more actively as well-informed citizens ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref14">52</reflink>]) and frequently possess enhanced employability prospects ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]). This has made CT a competence with little conceptual and methodological consensus in its measurement instruments due to the multifaceted attention it has garnered from diverse scholars and educators interested in the development of thinking skills ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref17">42</reflink>]). Consequently, multiple conceptualizations of CT persist contingent upon the field or disciplinary context under studied ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>]a).</p> <p>Existing theoretical frameworks characterize CT as a purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed thinking process, comprising a set of fundamental cognitive skills ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref23">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref25">57</reflink>]a). These competences enable individuals discern and interpret information ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref26">57</reflink>]a), scrutinize its validity, assess its reliability, interrogate its origins ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref28">52</reflink>]), and construct coherent explanations and conclusions ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref30">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the cognitive aspect predominates ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]), CT cannot be solely delineated by its constituent skills, as proficiency in these skills does not guarantee adept critical thinking ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref32">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref34">61</reflink>]). Moreover, individuals must discern when it is convenient to use them and be willing and motivated to do so when necessary ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref36">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref37">57</reflink>]a). Thus, the behavioral component of CT manifests in the synergy between these components and their practical application ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>In an attempt to resolve the conceptual discrepancy, an interdisciplinary and international panel of CT experts formulated the Delphi Report ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]), presenting CT as a construct organized around two dimensions: cognitive abilities and affective dispositions. CT is defined as:</p> <p>Intentional, self-regulatory judgment resulting in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as an explanation of the visual, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which that judgment is based ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>], p. 3).</p> <p>This conceptual perspective underscores CT as a multidimensional construct, consolidating the principal components agreed upon in current literature and representing the widely accepted definition of proficient CT ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref47">61</reflink>]). Under this approach, CT comprises six core cognitive skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation, each with their respective sub-skills, with analysis, evaluation, and inference holding particular significance ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]); and two affective dispositions: approach to life and living and approach to specific themes, questions or problems, along with their sub-components ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref50">23</reflink>]; Ossa-Cornejo et al., 2021; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref51">57</reflink>]a). Definition of each component is presented below (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. CT's Cognitive Abilities Definition ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Ability</th><th align="center">Sub-skills</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Analysis Recognize an argument structure to identify and examine its verbal and graphic statements and representations, their conceptual relationships and each of their role in concluding.</td><td>Idea's examination Define, contrast, and relate the role of various ideas, concepts, or statements in argumentation, reasoning, or persuasion.</td></tr><tr><td>Argument's identification Determine whether a set of verbal or graphical representations supports or denies any statement, opinion, or viewpoint.</td></tr><tr><td>Argument's analysis Determine whether a set of verbal o graphic representations provides sufficient reasoning to justify an opinion.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Evaluation Examine the descriptions of a person's perception, experience, situation, judgment, belief, or opinion, and evaluate the logical force of actual or intended relationships between them to judge its credibility.</td><td>Claims evaluation Recognize relevant facts to evaluate the credibility, acceptability, probability of truth, and level of trust of information.</td></tr><tr><td>Argument's evaluation Judge whether the credibility of an argument justifies accepting it as true (deductively true) or most likely true (inductively justified), while raising questions or objections and evaluating whether these point to weakness in the argument.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Inference Identify and secure elements to reasonably conclude. It implies stating hypotheses considering the relevant information and the consequences derived from any set of verbal or graphic representations.</td><td>Evidence consultation Assess relevant information and argumentative support required to determine the acceptability, plausibility, or credibility of a premise, and formulate a strategy to gather scientific information.</td></tr><tr><td>Alternative's consideration Generate multiple plans to achieve a goal while consider the potential consequences of each decision. This involves formulate various alternatives to solve a problem, postulate different assumptions regarding a question, and project alternative hypotheses regarding an event.</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion's creation Determine which of several possible conclusions should be considered in a given situation by appropriately employing analogical, arithmetic, dialectical, and scientific reasoning, considering which is most strongly justified or supported or which should be rejected or considered less plausible based on available evidence.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Interpretation Understand and express the meaning of various situations, experiences, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures, or criteria.</td><td>Categorization Formulate distinctions or frameworks for understanding, describing, or characterizing experiences, situations, beliefs, events, or information.</td></tr><tr><td>Decoding Detect and describe the informative content, affective meaning, managerial functions, intentions, motives, purposes, social meaning, criteria, values, procedures, points of view, rules, and relationships expressed through verbal, behavioral, or graphic representations.</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning clarification Make explicit the contextual, conventional, or intentional meanings of ideas conveyed in verbal, graphic, or behavioral representations to eliminate unintended confusion, vagueness, or ambiguity.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Self-regulation Conscious monitoring of the process and results of cognitive activities, applying analysis and evaluation skills to question, confirm, validate, or correct them.</td><td>Self-examination Evaluating both the process and results of cognitive activities, assessing whether they are influenced by deficiencies in self-knowledge, stereotypes, prejudices, emotions, or any other factor that may limit objectivity or rationality.</td></tr><tr><td>Self-correction Design reasonable procedures to correct errors and their underlying causes identified during self-examination.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Furthermore, the list of affective dispositions characterizing proficient critical thinkers are: curiosity regarding diverse issues; acquiring and maintaining well-rounded knowledge; readiness to recognize and capitalize on opportunities for critical thinking; trust in structured deliberative processes; self-assurance in reasoning abilities; receptiveness to diverse perspectives; adaptability in considering alternative viewpoints; comprehension of others' perspectives; impartiality in evaluating reasoning; honesty in confronting personal biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and inclinations; caution in suspending, formulating, or revising judgments; willingness to reevaluate positions where honest introspection warrants change; clarity in articulating questions or concerns; organization in handling complex tasks; diligence in seeking pertinent information; rationality in selecting and applying standards; attentiveness to current issues; perseverance in the face of challenges; and a degree of precision appropriate to the subject and context ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>A literature review revealed prominent instruments for assessing CT based on the Delphi panel's definition, including the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTS), the Test for Everyday Reasoning (TER), and the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]). However, none of these instruments simultaneously measure both dimensions of CT, as the first two evaluate only cognitive skills components, while the third focuses solely on assessing related dispositions.</p> <p>Other instruments that are not based con Delphi panel's framework, such as the Watson-Glaser Critical Appraisal ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref58">60</reflink>]), the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>]), the Cornell Test of Critical Thinking ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]), the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment using Everyday Situations ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref61">28</reflink>]), and the Salamanca Critical Thinking Test ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref62">49</reflink>]), evaluate CT solely based on its cognitive abilities. Meanwhile, tests like the Motivational Scale of Critical Thinking (EMPC) ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref63">58</reflink>]b) are grounded solely in motivational dispositions.</p> <p>Given the contemporary understanding of CT as a synthesis of highly interrelated skills and dispositions operating jointly and complementarily ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref65">44</reflink>]), the lack of psychometric tests that assess CT as a multidimensional concept comprising cognitive skills and affective dispositions, and notably, the absence of Latin American assessments ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref66">44</reflink>]), the present study aimed to design and validate a CT assessment scale based on the theoretical framework provided by the Delphi report.</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181917620-3">Design</hd> <p>The present study adopts a quantitative empirical approach with an instrumental design, aiming to develop and validate a critical thinking assessment scale ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-4">Participants</hd> <p>A non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was employed virtually, resulting in a sample of 258 individuals (55.04% women) aged between 18 and 63 years (<emph>M</emph> = 39.68; <emph>SD</emph> = 14.48). Participants represented diverse educational backgrounds, including high school (3.87%), technologist (3.49%), technician (5.43%), undergraduate (18.22%), professional (27.90%), specialization (19.38%), master (19.38%), and doctorate (2.33%). Inclusion criteria included being of legal age and Colombian nationality or residence. The adequacy of the sample size was confirmed with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic of.907, surpassing the minimum acceptable value of.8 ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-5">Procedure</hd> <p>Initially, a literature review identified the APA Delphi Panel CT conceptualization as the most appropriate framework ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>]). The primary CT components were delineated, and a specifications table was developed, allocating each factor's percentage (%) load and the appropriate number of items (see Appendix A). Expert validation was then conducted independently by five psychologists, including three Ph.D. holders and two candidates, all possessing extensive research experience pertinent to the design and subject matter of the present study. Additionally, one expert specialized in assessment and evaluation, while another had considerable expertise in university teaching, research methodology, and psychometrics. The remaining three experts specialized in thinking skills and cognitive development, teaching and consulting in life-skills education, and linguistic and decision-making processes, respectively. The items were evaluated based on relevance, clarity, sufficiency, and necessity using a scoring scheme adapted from [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>]. The scores underwent analysis using Lawshe's Content Validity Index (CVI), with values exceeding 0.6 deemed satisfactory ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref71">55</reflink>]). Subsequent adjustments were made to the scale based on the evaluation results.</p> <p>The scale was administered and validated using the Microsoft Forms tool. Participants were required to confirm eligibility, provide demographic information (age in years, sex, and academic level), and follow instructions for responding to the scale items. Validity and reliability tests were then conducted on the collected data, and a database was established.</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-6">Data Analysis</hd> <p>To analyze the internal structure of the test, sample adequacy (KMO), Bartlett's sphericity coefficient (<emph>p</emph> <.05 expected), and collinearity were assessed, verifying correlation values were less than.9 ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref72">47</reflink>]). Once confirmed, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using a weighted least squares extraction with a promax oblique rotation method, given the scalar condition of each item and the theoretical relation of these factors ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref73">37</reflink>]). Factor loadings below 0.4 and factors comprising less than three items were eliminated iteratively until all retained items exhibited unique factor loadings.</p> <p>Reliability analysis involved evaluating McDonald's ω, Cronbach's alpha (α), Guttman's λ6, and Greatest Lower Bound (GLB) statistics for the complete test and each factor. Values exceeding.7 were indicative of internal consistency ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>]). In addition, sample normality was verified with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Due to normality not being founded, Pearson's product-moment correlations (<emph>r</emph>) between each item and the test and Spearman's rank correlations between items of the same factor were analyzed, expecting values above.3 for all ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref75">13</reflink>]). Finally, the rules for scoring and interpreting the test were developed. Given the sample size (<emph>n</emph> > 200) ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]), it was consolidated into a scale using Z scores for direct score interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref77">59</reflink>]) (see Appendix C). All the analysis were conducted using Jasp software ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-7">Ethical Considerations</hd> <p>This research received approval from the Research and Ethics Subcommittee of the researchers' Faculty of Psychology, with record number 158. Furthermore, participants' rights were upheld throughout the research, as their participation was entirely voluntary, and their dignity, integrity, privacy, and autonomy were all maintained. They were provided with the opportunity to give informed consent before the questionnaire was administered, which included information about the study's authors, its purpose, justification, the advantages of participating, the procedure to be followed and confidentiality and anonymity agreements (American Psychological Association (APA), [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants were assured of no risk to their well-being following resolution 8,430 of 1993s article 11 ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref80">15</reflink>]), and their data were strictly used for research purposes only, with no feedback provided on the results due to the ongoing validation process.</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-8">Results</hd> <p>The specifications table, constructed in alignment with the two dimensions of Critical Thinking (CT) proposed by the Delphi report and its sub-components, guided the development of the Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES) (see Appendix A). Results of the validation process by expert judges of the corresponding items are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Lawshe's Content Validity Index (CVI) for Each Item According to the Scoring Criteria by Judges and Subsequent Decisions on Their Permanence in the Test.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="center">12</th><th align="center">13</th><th align="center">14</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">15</th><th align="center">16</th><th align="center">17</th><th align="center">18</th><th align="center">19</th><th align="center">20</th><th align="center">21</th><th align="center">22</th><th align="center">23</th><th align="center">24</th><th align="center">25</th><th align="center">26</th><th align="center">27</th><th align="center">28</th></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>S</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">29</th><th align="center">30</th><th align="center">31</th><th align="center">32</th><th align="center">33</th><th align="center">34</th><th align="center">35</th><th align="center">36</th><th align="center">37</th><th align="center">38</th><th align="center">39</th><th align="center">40</th><th align="center">41</th><th align="center">42</th></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>D</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">43</th><th align="center">44</th><th align="center">45</th><th align="center">46</th><th align="center">47</th><th align="center">48</th><th align="center">49</th><th align="center">50</th><th align="center">51</th><th align="center">52</th><th align="center">53</th><th align="center">54</th><th align="center">55</th><th align="center">56</th></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">57</th><th align="center">58</th><th align="center">59</th><th align="center">60</th><th align="center">61</th><th align="center">62</th><th align="center">63</th><th align="center">64</th><th align="center">65</th><th align="center">66</th><th align="center">67</th><th align="center">68</th><th align="center">69</th><th align="center">70</th></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">71</th><th align="center">72</th><th align="center">73</th><th align="center">74</th><th align="center">75</th><th align="center">76</th><th align="center">77</th><th align="center">78</th><th align="center">79</th><th align="center">80</th><th align="center">81</th><th align="center">82</th><th align="center">83</th><th align="center">84</th></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>M</td><td>S</td><td>D</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Item/criteria</th><th align="center">85</th><th align="center">86</th><th align="center">87</th><th align="center">88</th><th align="center">89</th><th align="center">90</th><th align="center">91</th><th align="center">92</th><th align="center">93</th><th align="center">94</th><th /><th /><th /><th /></tr><tr><td>Relevance</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.25</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Sufficiency</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Need</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>1</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.75</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Decision</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td>M</td><td>D</td><td>D</td><td>S</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. For the decision, S means that the item was kept the same, M means that it was kept and modified, and D means that it was deleted.</p> <p>Based on the obtained Content Validity Index, the validation process by expert judges resulted in the deletion of 22 items (CVI < 0.6), the retention of 32 items (CVI > 0.7), and modification of 25 items based on qualitative feedback from each judge. Two motivational disposition sub-categories were removed due to none of their items meeting the minimal sufficient value for two or more rating criteria. Additionally, items with lower frequency CVI ratings of 1 or 0.75 were deleted to maintain the percentage loadings of the original theoretical proposal. Consequently, the scale comprised 57 items for validation and administration to 258 participants. Factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the CTES (see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Correlation Matrix of the Exploratory Factor Analysis.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Item</th><th align="center">Factor 1</th><th align="center">Factor 2</th><th align="center">Uniqueness</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Item-22</td><td>0.736</td><td /><td>0.588</td></tr><tr><td>Item-51</td><td>0.730</td><td /><td>0.506</td></tr><tr><td>Item-16</td><td>0.706</td><td /><td>0.504</td></tr><tr><td>Item-46</td><td>0.679</td><td /><td>0.556</td></tr><tr><td>Item-52</td><td>0.592</td><td /><td>0.630</td></tr><tr><td>Item-39</td><td>0.580</td><td /><td>0.628</td></tr><tr><td>Item-48</td><td>0.567</td><td /><td>0.595</td></tr><tr><td>Item-25</td><td>0.435</td><td /><td>0.597</td></tr><tr><td>Item-18</td><td /><td>0.751</td><td>0.453</td></tr><tr><td>Item-31</td><td /><td>0.743</td><td>0.496</td></tr><tr><td>Item-6</td><td /><td>0.642</td><td>0.555</td></tr><tr><td>Item-30</td><td /><td>0.607</td><td>0.594</td></tr><tr><td>Item-4</td><td /><td>0.574</td><td>0.728</td></tr><tr><td>Item-10</td><td /><td>0.561</td><td>0.747</td></tr><tr><td>Item-57</td><td /><td>0.484</td><td>0.717</td></tr><tr><td>Item-17</td><td /><td>0.471</td><td>0.681</td></tr><tr><td>Item-55</td><td /><td>0.433</td><td>0.599</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Items' order was randomized for test administration purposes.</p> <p>The final scale consisted of 17 items distributed across 2 factors: Factor 1 comprised 8 items, while Factor 2 included 9 items. Reliability values for each factor and the overall scale demonstrated high internal consistency and appropriate reliability (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4. Reliability Statistics of the General Test and Each Factor.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Dimension</th><th align="center">McDonald's ω</th><th align="center">Cronbach's α</th><th align="center">Guttman's λ6</th><th align="center">Greatest lower bound</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>General</td><td>.891</td><td>.890</td><td>.903</td><td>0.937</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 1</td><td>.848</td><td>.847</td><td>.839</td><td>0.881</td></tr><tr><td>Factor 2</td><td>.841</td><td>.839</td><td>.833</td><td>0.878</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All statistics indicated values exceeding.8, signifying robust internal consistency. Positive and significant correlations were observed within both factors (<emph>p</emph> <.01) and between all items, with item-test correlations exceeding.4 (Table 5). Each item contributed significantly to the high-reliability values of the test, as demonstrated by the hypothetical decrease in reliability values upon item elimination.</p> <p>Table 5. Item Hypothetical Elimination and Item-Test Correlation.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Factor</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Items</th><th align="center" colspan="4">If the item is deleted</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Item-test correlation</th></tr><tr><th align="center">McDonald's ω</th><th align="center">Cronbach's α</th><th align="center">Guttman's λ6</th><th align="center">Greatest lower bound</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">1</td><td>22</td><td>.834</td><td>.834</td><td>.820</td><td>0.872</td><td>.566</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>.824</td><td>.823</td><td>.811</td><td>0.861</td><td>.639</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>.822</td><td>.822</td><td>.81</td><td>0.861</td><td>.648</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>.829</td><td>.828</td><td>.814</td><td>0.854</td><td>.594</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>.832</td><td>.832</td><td>.819</td><td>0.858</td><td>.563</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>.833</td><td>.832</td><td>.818</td><td>0.861</td><td>.561</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>.832</td><td>.831</td><td>.817</td><td>0.865</td><td>.571</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>.834</td><td>.833</td><td>.822</td><td>0.868</td><td>.551</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="9">2</td><td>18</td><td>.811</td><td>.809</td><td>.801</td><td>0.851</td><td>.656</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>.815</td><td>.812</td><td>.803</td><td>0.854</td><td>.635</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>.819</td><td>.816</td><td>.804</td><td>0.852</td><td>.612</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>.822</td><td>.819</td><td>.811</td><td>0.858</td><td>.575</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>.834</td><td>.831</td><td>.822</td><td>0.871</td><td>.462</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>.835</td><td>.833</td><td>.824</td><td>0.876</td><td>.449</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>.832</td><td>.829</td><td>.82</td><td>0.87</td><td>.487</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>.828</td><td>.825</td><td>.814</td><td>0.859</td><td>.522</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>.825</td><td>.822</td><td>.809</td><td>0.85</td><td>.552</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>According to the results, the cumulative proportion of variance explained by the final scale was 40.2%</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-9">Discussion</hd> <p>This study aimed to design and validate the Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale, acknowledging the pivotal role of critical thinking (CT) in 21st-century society, as underscored by various scholars ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref82">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref83">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>]). Despite the acknowledged significance of CT, there remains a notable scarcity of psychometric instruments that comprehensively assess it as a multidimensional construct ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref85">44</reflink>]). Therefore, our endeavor sought to address this gap by constructing a scale grounded in the theoretical framework provided by the Delphi panel, which integrates the main components related to CT agreed upon literature: cognitive skills and affective dispositions.</p> <p>Our meticulous methodology involved constructing a specifications table based on CT components, followed by item construction, expert validation, and analysis using Lawshe's Content Validity Index. Upon adjustments, the scale was administered to a sample of 258 Colombian individuals. Subsequently, the assumptions of sample adequacy (KMO), Bartlett's sphericity, and collinearity were confirmed, and exploratory factor and reliability analysis were conducted.</p> <p>The results yielded a CT evaluation scale comprising 17 items distributed across two factors, demonstrating high indices of general reliability, and supporting the accuracy and internal consistency of the test ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]). Factor 1 is finally composed of 8 items, while Factor 2, of 9. Factor 1, termed Analytical Ability, primarily encompasses cognitive skills related to evaluation and analytical information processing (6 of 7 items), while Factor 2, termed Argumentative Ability, encompasses a distribution between motivational dispositions (3 items) and cognitive skills, reflecting the strategic application of skills and cognitive strategies in generating and utilizing information.</p> <p>These findings align with agreed established definitions of CT as an active and skillful application, analysis, and evaluation of information ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref89">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref91">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref92">56</reflink>]). Moreover, this scale ensures comprehensive coverage of the construct by incorporating both cognitive skills and affective dispositions within a unified measurement framework, marking a significant contribution to the existing literature. Notably, this scale represents a pioneering effort within the existing literature as the first to encompass CT as a multidimensional construct. The validity of the instrument is supported by its internal structure, as evidenced by the alignment between factor analysis clusters and the theoretical proposal, high explained variance, expert judgment validation, and adequate item-test correlations ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>The only initially integrated component of CT, whose items are not present in the scale's final version after the corresponding analyses, is the cognitive skill of self-regulation. However, while some literature suggests including self-regulation as a metacognitive component of CT ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref94">22</reflink>]), the scale's theoretical coverage encompasses this aspect within its broader framework. Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that metacognition, while related, constitutes a distinct cognitive process that enhances the direction and prediction of CT outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref95">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref96">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref97">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref98">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref99">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref100">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref102">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present study has limitations, including the lack of predictive validity testing and convergent validity analysis. Since this study marks the first instance within the current literature review of designing a scale covering the Delphi panel's CT conceptualization thoroughly, there was no endeavor to obtain valid evidence based on the response process and other variables. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct predictive validity studies with other variables, such as measuring and correlating CT with academic performance across various knowledge areas or comparing CT-trained and untrained individuals. Similarly, only exploratory factor analyses were performed due to the primary aim of designing a scale tested for its metric qualities for the first time. Consequently, it is recommended to validate this factorial structure through confirmatory factor analysis with independent samples in diverse contexts for future research. Another limitation of this study is the absence of a convergent validity analysis with other established measures of critical thinking. Despite the lack of instruments comprehensively covering all dimensions, as demonstrated by the present study, it is advisable to apply the current scale alongside others to assess their correlation in measurements.</p> <p>In conclusion, this research presents a robust and reliable psychometric instrument for evaluating CT in the analytical and argumentative skills and dispositions within the Colombian population. The scale was named the Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES), and application-ready version and norms for scoring and interpretation are provided, facilitating its use in various contexts to enhance CT thinking skills and motivational dispositions (see Aprendix B, C and D). Furthermore, critical thinking (CT) is a fundamental skill for students, enabling them to effectively plan their learning, evaluate their performance, and monitor their progress ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref104">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref105">2</reflink>]). This skill is equally applicable in scientific and business contexts ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref106">36</reflink>]). Moreover, within organizations, strong CT abilities facilitate problem identification, contextualization based on complexity, and the application of methodologically sound solution ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref107">63</reflink>]). Thus, enhancing CT proficiency is expected to address the challenge of constructing adequate instruments for measuring and evaluating CT due to the existing conceptual diversity ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref108">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref109">44</reflink>]). In today's rapidly evolving information society, the ability to identify individuals with adequate CT skills is more crucial than ever.</p> <hd id="AN0181917620-10">Appendix A</hd> <p>Specifications Table.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><tbody><tr><td rowspan="35">CT<break />100%<break />94 items</td><td rowspan="16">Cognitive skills 59.574%<break />56 items</td><td rowspan="3">Analysis<break />12.766%<break />12 items</td><td>Ideas examination<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Examine the role an idea plays in the context of an argument.</td></tr><tr><td>Arguments identification 4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Identify the role an argument plays in concluding to support or deny a statement, opinion, or point of view.</td></tr><tr><td>Argument analysis<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Analyze the structure of an argument to detect its propositions, the conceptual relationships between them, and the role they play in concluding, determining whether it expresses sufficient reasons to justify it or not.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Evaluation<break />8.511%<break />8 items</td><td>Claims evaluation<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Evaluate the acceptability, credibility, probability of truth, and confidence level of the relevant factors of a counterargument.</td></tr><tr><td>Arguments evaluation<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Assess the credibility of an argument and whether its degree of acceptability justifies accepting it as accurate or most likely true by anticipating and raising objections against its weaknesses.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Inferences<break />12.766%<break />12 items</td><td>Evidence consultation<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Search and collect pertinent elements to decide the information's acceptability, plausibility, or credibility.</td></tr><tr><td>Alternatives consideration<break /> 4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>Postulate and consider alternative information to develop a range of possible conclusions.</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion creation<break />4.255%<break />4 items</td><td>State and justify reasonable conclusions considering, among several options, the appropriate point of view according to the consulted evidence.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Explanation<break />9.574%<break />9 items</td><td>Results statement<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Describe the results of reasoning processes using precise statements or representations.</td></tr><tr><td>Procedures justification 3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Indicate the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, and contextual considerations that were executed in generating the results of the reasoning activities.</td></tr><tr><td>Arguments presentation 3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Present the results of one's reasoning activities, giving reasons for accepting them and facing objections to evaluative or analytical criteria.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Interpretation<break />9.574%<break />9 items</td><td>Categorization<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Distinguish and classify the meaning of a situation or argument, grouping it into an appropriate information condition.</td></tr><tr><td>Decoding<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Identify and describe the informational content, affective meaning, and directive purpose (expressed through language or behavior) of a situation or argument.</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning clarification<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Clarify a situation or argument's contextual, conventional, or intended meanings to eliminate unintended confusion, vagueness, or ambiguity.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Self-regulation<break />6.383%<break />6 items</td><td>Self-examination<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Conscious and objective monitoring of one's reasoning to question it, judging the extent to which it is influenced by limiting factors such as prejudices and emotions.</td></tr><tr><td>Self-correction<break />3.191%<break />3 items</td><td>Conscious, objective and reflective monitoring of one's reasoning to validate its results. Design adequate procedures to remedy or correct the errors and their causes if necessary.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="19">Affective dispositions<break />40.426%<break />38 items</td><td rowspan="12">Approach to life and living in general 25.532%<break />24 items</td><td colspan="2">Curiosity regarding various issues.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Concern about being and staying well informed.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Alert to opportunities to use critical thinking.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Confidence in reasoned consultation processes.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Self-confidence in reasoning ability.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Open-mindedness to diverse points of view.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Understanding others' opinion.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Fairness in reasoning evaluation.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Honesty by facing biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and one's tendencies.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Prudence in withholding, making, or altering judgments.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Willingness to reconsider and revise positions where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Approach to specific issues, questions, or problems<break />14.894%<break />14 items</td><td colspan="2">The clarity in raising questions or concerns.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Order in complex work.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Diligence searching for relevant information.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Rationality in selecting and applying criteria.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Being careful about focusing on the current concern.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Persistence in facing difficulties.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Precision degree allowed by the subject to oneself and to the circumstances.<break />2.128% 2 items</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181917620-11">Appendix B. Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale</hd> <p>Please complete the following information:</p> <p>Age: _____ Gender: F___ M___</p> <p>Current Academic Level: ______________________</p> <p>You will find a list of questions linked to critical thinking's analytical and argumentative abilities below. Please carefully read each one and select only one response for each statement based on how much you believe each statement pertains to you. You will have four response options: <emph>Strongly Disagree</emph>, <emph>Disagree</emph>, <emph>Agree</emph>, and <emph>Strongly Agree</emph>. Use the scale at the top of the questionnaire to rate each statement.</p> <p>Please, be as honest as possible, remember that there are no right or wrong answers, what really matters is you to give the answer that best suits you.</p> <p></p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Item</th><th align="center">Strongly disagree</th><th align="center">Disagree</th><th align="center">Agree</th><th align="center">Strongly agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. I seek to know different explanations for the same phenomenon.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. I classify arguments easily according to the quality of their information.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. I verify the validity of the information in a critique using reliable sources.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. I can quickly identify how arguments are articulated to conclude.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. I evaluate the relevance of ideas according to the context in which they are presented.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. It is easier for me to state clearly what I understood after reading a text.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. I can understand an argument contrary to mine, even if I disagree.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. I can easily extract the most important ideas from a text or an argument.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. I seek reliable opinions and data to support my arguments.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. I can easily identify when there is no coherence between the ideas in a speech.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. I believe that a conclusion should be a logical derivation of a series of arguments.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12. I can easily identify the relationship between two or more ideas in a text.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13. I can understand contradictory positions on the same issue.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>14. I can identify the purpose for which a piece of information is presented.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>15. I am interested in different viewpoints before creating my opinion on an issue.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>16. I believe I have the necessary and sufficient skills to perform well in a debate.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>17. I consider different points of view to evaluate the truth of an idea.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181917620-12">Appendix C. Escala Evaluativa de Pensamiento Crítico</hd> <p>Por favor complete la siguiente información:</p> <p>Edad: __________</p> <p>Sexo: M__ F__</p> <p>Nivel Académico actual: ______________________________</p> <p>A continuación, usted encontrará una serie de preguntas relacionadas con las capacidades argumentativas y analíticas relacionadas al pensamiento crítico. Por favor, léalas con atención y elija una sola respuesta para cada uno, según el grado en el que considere que cada enunciado aplique para usted. Tendrá 4 opciones de respuesta: Totalmente en desacuerdo, En desacuerdo, De acuerdo, y Totalmente de acuerdo. Use la escala que encontrará en la parte superior del cuestionario para puntuar cada uno de los enunciados.</p> <p>Por favor, sea lo más sincero posible, recuerde que no hay respuestas correctas o incorrectas, lo importante es que dé la respuesta que más se ajuste a usted mismo. Agradecemos su sinceridad.</p> <p></p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Pregunta</th><th align="center">Totalmente en desacuerdo</th><th align="center">En desacuerdo</th><th align="center">De acuerdo</th><th align="center">Totalmente de acuerdo</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Busco conocer diversas explicaciones de un mismo fenómeno</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Clasifico argumentos fácilmente de acuerdo con la calidad de su información</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Verifico la validez de la información de una crítica usando fuentes confiables</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Identifico fácilmente la manera como se articulan argumentos para llegar a una conclusión</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Evalúo la pertinencia de las ideas de acuerdo con el contexto en el que se presentan</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Se me facilita plantear claramente qué entendí después de leer un texto</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Puedo entender un argumento contrario al mío, aunque no esté de acuerdo con este</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Se me facilita extraer las ideas más importantes de un texto o un argumento</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. Busco opiniones y datos confiables que sustenten mis argumentos</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. Se me facilita identificar cuando no hay coherencia entre las ideas de un discurso</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. Considero que una conclusión debería ser una derivación lógica de sus argumentos</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12. Identifico fácilmente la relación que existe entre dos o más ideas de un texto</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13. Puedo entender posiciones contradictorias sobre un mismo tema</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>14. Se me facilita identificar el propósito con el que se expone una información</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>15. Me interesa conocer distintos puntos de vista antes de crear mi opinión sobre un tema</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>16. Considero que tengo las habilidades necesarias para tener un buen desempeño en un debate</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>17. Tengo en cuenta diversos puntos de vista para evaluar la veracidad de una idea</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181917620-13">Appendix D. Qualification and interpretation rules</hd> <p>The following steps must be followed for the evaluation:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Considering that "<emph>Strongly Disagree</emph>" equals 1 point, "<emph>Disagree</emph>" equals 2 points, "<emph>Agree</emph>" equals 3 points, and "<emph>Strongly Agree</emph>" equals 4 points, each item score must be considered to obtain the score for each factor.</item> <p></p> <item> The <emph>scores for EACH DIMENSION</emph> must be obtained considering the following:</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>(a) Argumentative Ability</emph>. Odd items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>(b) Analytical Ability</emph>. Even numbered items: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16.</item> <p></p> <item> Both scores sum get the <emph>TOTAL SCORE</emph>.</item> </ulist> <p>For results interpretation, compare the obtained with the following table:</p> <p></p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Construct level</th><th align="center">Under</th><th align="center">Middle</th><th align="center">High</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TOTAL SCORE range</td><td>47 or less</td><td>Between 48 and 61</td><td>62 or higher</td></tr><tr><td>Interpretation for TOTAL SCORE</td><td>A person with low levels of critical thinking denotes these characteristics:<break />a. Possesses inadequate examination of ideas and ability to identify and analyze arguments; indicating difficulty determining the role of various terms or expressions in reasoning, failing to determine whether a set of statements, questions, descriptions, or representations sufficiently supports or rejects an assumption.<break />b. Has difficulty recognizing relevant elements allowing him/her to evaluate the probability of truth or acceptability of some information.<break />c. Does not have adequate strategies to consult evidence to support his/her arguments and does not show willingness to consult. Does not usually look for alternatives when solving problems or questions.<break />d. Has difficulty producing adequate statements, representations, or descriptions of the results of reasoning activities, which makes it challenging to analyze, evaluate, infer, or monitor those results.<break />e. Infrequently performs an adequate categorization of information, so he/she cannot separate its contents from clarifying the meaning of different situations, events, beliefs,<break />procedures, among others.<break />f. Has difficulty interpreting the meaning of information presented through speech, writing, behaviors, or graphic representations.<break />g. Demonstrates little or no willingness to consider or understand differing opinions or alternatives. Does not demonstrate fairness in evaluating reasoning and does not show self-confidence in his/her ability to reason.</td><td>A person with average levels of critical thinking denotes these characteristics:<break />a. Acceptable examination of ideas and ability to identify and analyze arguments, indicating capacity to determine the role of various terms or expressions in reasoning and whether statements, questions, descriptions, or representations sufficiently support or reject an assumption.<break />b. Recognizes relevant elements that allow him/her to evaluate information's probability of truth or acceptability.<break />c. Possesses good strategies to consult evidence to support his/her arguments and makes the consultation. Usually looks for alternatives when solving problems or questions.<break />d. Can produce adequate statements, representations, or descriptions of the results of reasoning activities, which allow for analysis, evaluation, inference, or monitoring of those results.<break />e. Properly categorize information, allowing him/her to separate its contents by clarifying the meaning of different situations, events, beliefs, and procedures, among others. Correctly interprets the meaning of information<break />presented through speech, writing, behaviors, or graphic representations.<break />f. Shows willingness to consider or understand differing opinions or alternatives and fairness in evaluating reasoning.<break />g. Self-confidence in his/her ability to reason.</td><td>A person with high levels of critical thinking denotes these characteristics:<break />a. Readily examines ideas and identifies and analyzes arguments, indicating that he/she correctly determines the role of various terms or expressions in a line of reasoning. Can quickly determine whether the statements, questions, descriptions, or representations sufficiently support or reject an assumption.<break />b. Easily recognizes relevant elements that allow him/her to evaluate the probability of truth or acceptability of a piece of information.<break />c. Frequently consults evidence to support his/her arguments through appropriate consultation strategies. Also, the alternatives used to solve problems or questions are adequate.<break />d. Easily produces adequate and clear statements, representations, or descriptions of the results of one's reasoning activities, allowing for analysis, evaluation, inference, or monitoring of those results.<break />e. Performs an outstanding categorization of information, which allows him/her to separate its contents from clarifying the meaning of different situations, events, beliefs, and procedures, among others.<break />Often accurately interprets the meaning of information presented through speech, writing, behaviors, or graphic representations.<break />f. Shows high and frequent willingness to consider or understand differing opinions or alternatives and fairness in evaluating reasoning.<break />g. High self-confidence in his/her ability to reason.</td></tr><tr><td>ARGUMENTATIVE CAPACITY range</td><td>20 or less</td><td>Between 21 and 28</td><td>29 or more</td></tr><tr><td>Interpretation for ARGUMENTATIVE CAPACITY</td><td>The individual:<break />a. Presents impediments when examining the role an idea plays in one's argumentation.<break />b. Have difficulty identifying the role of an argument in accepting or rejecting an assertion or opinion.<break />c. Find it challenging to assess the level of credibility and acceptability to justify an argument and to raise objections to its weaknesses.<break />d. Find it difficult to compile the relevant elements to confirm the truth of an argument.<break />e. Has difficulty proposing or considering information from many sources to develop a range of possible conclusions.<break />f. Has trouble contemplating options and viewpoints distinct from one's own, showing no interest in learning from other people's perspectives, and being biased when evaluating arguments.</td><td>The individual is capable of:<break />a. Examine an idea's role in an argument of its own.<break />b. Identify the role of an argument in supporting or debating an assertion or opinion.<break />c. Adequately assess the level of credibility and acceptability to justify an argument as accurate by raising objections to its weaknesses.<break />d. Compile the relevant elements to confirm the veracity of an argument.<break />e. Propose and consider information from various sources to develop a range of possible conclusions.<break />f. Be flexible in considering alternatives and opinions different from one's own, understanding the point of view of others, and being impartial in the reasoning evaluation.</td><td>The individual:<break />a. Easily examines an idea's role in an argument of its own.<break />b. Quickly and accurately identifies the role of an argument and how it supports or debates an assertion or opinion.<break />c. Easily identifies the level of credibility and acceptability to justify an argument as accurate and raises objections to its weaknesses.<break />d. Compiles with simplicity the relevant elements to confirm the truth of an argument.<break />e. Frequently proposes and considers other types of information to develop a variety of possible conclusions.<break />f. Is very flexible in considering alternatives and opinions different from one's own and constantly understands the point of view of others, being unbiased in evaluating reasoning.</td></tr><tr><td>ANALITICAL CAPACITY range</td><td>25 or less</td><td>Between 26 and 33</td><td>34 or more</td></tr><tr><td>Interpretation for ANALITICAL CAPACITY range</td><td>The individual:<break />a. Presents obstacles when examining an idea's role in an external argument or discourse.<break />b. Hardly identifies the role an argument plays in concluding to support or argue a point of view.<break />c. Synthesizes an argument but does not analyze it in parts to detect its propositions, relationships between concepts, and their role in determining whether sufficient reasons to justify it are accurate.<break />d. Has difficulty clarifying the reasoning processes from precise statements or representations.<break />e. Finds fuzzy to categorize meanings under sufficient information conditions.<break />f. Has difficulty detecting the content, affective meaning, and purpose of a piece of information from the language or behavior of the situation in which it is stated.<break />g. Distrusts his/her ability to reason.</td><td>The individual is capable of:<break />a. Examine the role an idea plays within an external argument or discourse.<break />b. Partially identify an argument's role in reaching a conclusion to support or argue a point of view.<break />c. Analyze the composition of an argument to detect its propositions, relationships between concepts, and the role they play in determining whether there are sufficient reasons to justify it as accurate.<break />d. Describe their reasoning processes from precise statements or representations.<break />e. Distinguish and classify meanings by grouping them under appropriate conditions of information.<break />f. Detect informational content, affective meaning, and purpose of a piece of information from the language or behavior of the situation in which it is stated.<break />g. Trust his/her ability to reason.</td><td>The individual is capable of:<break />a. Examine in depth the role an idea plays within an external argument or discourse.<break />b. Identify an argument's role in concluding to support or argue a point of view.<break />c. Fully analyze the composition of an argument to detect its propositions, relationships between concepts, and the role they play in determining whether there are sufficient reasons to justify it as accurate.<break />d. Accurately and precisely describe their reasoning processes from accurate statements or representations.<break />e. Precisely distinguish and classify meaning in an exact way by grouping them in appropriate information conditions.<break />f. Detect thoroughly and explicitly the informational content, affective meaning, and purpose of a piece of information from the language or behavior of the situation in which it is stated.<break />g. Have complete confidence in his/her ability to reason.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. The "low" construct level range corresponds to scores obtained below <emph>M</emph> − <emph>SD</emph>. The "medium" level corresponds to scores obtained between <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph> and "high" scores above <emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph>.</p> <ref id="AN0181917620-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alsaleh N. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking skills: Literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 21–39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239945.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref105" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alwehaibi H. (2012). Novel program to promote critical thinking among higher education students: Empirical study from Saudi Arabia. Asian Social Science, 8(11), 193. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=b10c926849ffcf01a5cbc54b121caf184eb082f0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Philosophical Association (APA). (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Executive Summary "The Delphi Report". https://philarchive.org/archive/faccta.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref79" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association (APA). (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association. https://<ulink href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/code">www.apa.org/ethics/code</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> An Le D. T. B., Hockey J. (2022). Critical thinking in the higher education classroom: Knowledge, power, control, and identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(1), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.2003182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref76" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Aragón L. (2011). Evaluación psicológica: historia, fundamentos teórico-conceptuales y psicometría. Manual Moderno.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ato M., López J., Benavente A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038–1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref93" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barraza A. (2007). La consulta a expertos como estrategia para la recolección de evidencias de validez basadas en el contenido. Investigación educativa duranguense, 7, 5–14. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2358908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref43" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beckie T. M., Lowry L. W., Barnett S. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in baccalaureate nursing students: A longitudinal study. Holistic Nursing Practice, 15(3), 18–26. https://pdfs.journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/2001/04000/Assessing_Critical_Thinking_in_Baccalaureate.6.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernard R. M., Zhang D., Abrami P. C., Sicoly F., Borokhovski E., Surkes M. A. (2008). Exploring the structure of the Watson–Glaser critical thinking appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2007.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Black B. (2012). An overview of a programme of research to support the assessment of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler H. A., Dwyer C. P., Hogan M. J., Franco A., Rivas S. F., Saiz C., Almeida L. S. (2012). The halpern critical thinking assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chadha N. (2009). Applied psychometry. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choy S. C., Cheah P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198–206. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ864337.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colombian Health Ministery. (1993, October 4). Resolución N° 8430 de 1993. https://<ulink href="http://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/lists/bibliotecadigital/ride/de/dij/resolucion-8430-de-1993.pdf">www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/lists/bibliotecadigital/ride/de/dij/resolucion-8430-de-1993.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson T. L. (2008). Metacognition and learning in adulthood. Developmental Testing Service, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer C. P. (2011). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool [Doctoral thesis, National University of Ireland]. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=07433d5ecc9d4c65cd05eb642ea937e91eea73b0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer C. P., Hogan M. J., Stewart I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004">http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellerton P. (2022). On critical thinking and content knowledge: A critique of the assumptions of cognitive load theory. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 100975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis R. H., Millman J. (2005). Cornell critical thinking test, level X. Midwest Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escobar J., Cuervo-Martínez A. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en medición, 6, 27–36. https://gc.scalahed.com/recursos/files/r161r/w25645w/Juicio_de_expertos_u4.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Facione P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research Findings and Recommendations. California State University: ERIC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Facione P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment, 2007(1), 1–23. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/71022740/what_why98-libre.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Facione P. A., Facione N. C. (2001). Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15(2), 267–28. https://w.insightassessment.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/pdf/IJAP_Analysis_Paper.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gambrill E. (2006). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. John Wiley y Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiadou E., Rahanu H., Siakas K. V., McGuinness C., Edwards J. A., Hill V., Khan N., Kirby P., Cavanagh J., Knezevic R. (2018). Fake news and critical thinking in information evaluation. https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/24364/1/BIHAC%202018%20Georgiadou%20et%20al%20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghanizadeh A. (2011). An investigation into the relationship between self-regulation and critical thinking among Iranian EFL teachers. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(2), 117–124. https://jte.sru.ac.ir/article_292_00817d7decdf06118d88b083a2687ce9.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halpern D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1998-00766-023.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halpern D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heydarnejad T., Hosseini A., Ghonsooly B. (2021). The relationship between critical thinking, self-regulation, and teaching style preferences among EFL teachers: A path analysis approach. Journal of Language and Education, 7(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.1110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong Y. C., Choi I. (2015). Assessing reflective thinking in solving design problems: The development of a questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 848–863. http://.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> JASP Team. (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.2) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kocak O., Coban M., Aydin A., Cakmak N. (2021). The mediating role of critical thinking and cooperativity in the 21st century skills of higher education students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ku K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students' critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn D., Dean D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–274. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3701534.pdf">www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3701534.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin S.S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students' critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1023–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloret-Segura S., Ferreres-Traver A., Hernández-Baeza A., Tomás-Marco I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151–1169. https://revistas.um.es/analesps/article/download/analesps.30.3.199361/165441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magno C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 137–156. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4">http://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melsert A. L. D. M., Bicalho P. P. G. D. (2012). Mismatches between a critical practice in psychology and traditional views on education. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 16(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-85572012000100016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miele D., Wigfield A. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative relations between motivation and critical analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 519–541. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9282-2">http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9282-2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieto A. M., Saiz C. (2008). Relación entre las habilidades y las disposiciones del pensamiento crítico. Motivación y emoción: Contribuciones actuales, 2, 255–263. https://<ulink href="http://www.pensamiento-critico.com/archivos/motdispopc.pdf">www.pensamiento-critico.com/archivos/motdispopc.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niu L., Behar-Horenstein L., Garvan C. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students' critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nussbaum M., Barahona C., Rodríguez F., Guentulle V., Lopez F., Vázquez-Uscanga E., Cabezas V. (2021). Taking critical thinking, creativity, and grit online. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09867-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ossa-Cornejo C. J., Palma-Luengo M. R., Martín L. S., Nelly G., Quintana-Abello I. M., Díaz-Larenas C. H. (2017). Analysis of critical thinking measuring instruments. Ciencias psicológicas, 11(1), 19–28. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v11i2.1343">http://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v11i2.1343</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul R., Elder L. (2003). La mini-guía para el Pensamiento crítico. Conceptos y herramientas. Ed. Fundación para el Pensamiento Crítico. https://<ulink href="http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/PDF/SP-ConceptsandTools.pdf">www.criticalthinking.org/resources/PDF/SP-ConceptsandTools.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paz J. S., Molina E. C., Sánchez L. P. (2010). Pensamiento crítico y capacidad intelectual. Faísca, 15(17), 98–110. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3548104.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez E., Medrano L. (2010). Análisis Factorial Exploratorio: Bases Conceptuales y Metodológicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2(1), 58–66. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3161108.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricketts J. C., Rudd R. (2004). The relationship between critical thinking dispositions and critical thinking skills of selected youth leaders in the national FFA organization. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 54(1), 21–33. https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Ricketts/publication/266160642%5fThe%5fRelationship%5fbetween%5fCritical%5fThinking%5fDispositions%5fand%5fCritical%5fThinking%5fSkills%5fof%5fSelected%5fYouth%5fLeaders%5fin%5fthe%5fNational%5fFFA%5fOrganization.pdf">www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Ricketts/publication/266160642%5fThe%5fRelationship%5fbetween%5fCritical%5fThinking%5fDispositions%5fand%5fCritical%5fThinking%5fSkills%5fof%5fSelected%5fYouth%5fLeaders%5fin%5fthe%5fNational%5fFFA%5fOrganization.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivas S. F., Saiz C. (2012). Validación y propiedades psicométricas de la prueba de pensamiento crítico PENCRISAL. Revista Electrónica de Metodología Aplicada, 17(1), 18–34. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4107460.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiz C., Rivas S. F., Olivares S. (2015). Collaborative learning supported by rubrics improves critical thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 10–19. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i1.1290">http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i1.1290</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroyens W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: An introduction to critical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 163–164. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2005-02752-008.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shutaleva A. (2021). Critical thinking in media sphere: Attitude of university teachers to fake news and its impact on the teaching. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(51), 1–12. https://philarchive.org/archive/SHUCTI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva L., Rodrigues A. (2011). Critical thinking: Its relevance for education in a shifting society. Revista de Psicología, 29(1), 175–195. https://<ulink href="http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3378/337829518007.pdf">www.redalyc.org/pdf/3378/337829518007.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorensen H., Yankech L. (2008). Precepting in the fast lane: Improving critical thinking in new graduate nurses. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39(5), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080501-07</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tristán-López A. (2008). Modificación al modelo de Lawshe para el dictamen cuantitativo de la validez de contenido de un instrumento objetivo. Avances en Medición, 6, 37–48. https://<ulink href="http://www.humanas.unal.edu.co/lab%5fpsicometria/application/files/9716/0463/3548/VOL%5f6.%5fArticulo4%5fIndice%5fde%5fvalidez%5fde%5fcontenido%5f37-48.pdf">www.humanas.unal.edu.co/lab%5fpsicometria/application/files/9716/0463/3548/VOL%5f6.%5fArticulo4%5fIndice%5fde%5fvalidez%5fde%5fcontenido%5f37-48.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tung C. A., Chang S. Y. (2009). Developing critical thinking through literature reading. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19, 287–317. <ulink href="http://www.cocd.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1262069682958.pdf">http://www.cocd.fcu.edu.tw/wSite/publicfile/Attachment/f1262069682958.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valenzuela J., Nieto A. M. (2008a). Motivación y Pensamiento Crítico: Aportes para el estudio de esta relación. Revista Electrónica de Motivación y Emoción, 11(28). https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/49226601/article3-libre.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valenzuela J., Nieto A. M. (2008b). Motivación y disposiciones como predictores del desempeño del pensamiento crítico. In Emoción y Revista Motivación: investigaciones actuales (135–150). Publicaciones Universidad de La Laguna. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/51915693/Investigaciones_Actuales_en_Motivacion_y_Emocion-libre.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valero S. (2013). Transformación e interpretación de las puntuaciones. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. https://openaccess.uoc.edu/bitstream/10609/69325/1/Psicometr%C3%ADa_M%C3%B3dulo%204_Transformaci%C3%B3n%20e%20interpretaci%C3%B3n%20de%20las%20puntuaciones.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson G., Glaser E. M. (1980). Critical thinking appraisal, forms A and B. Harcourt, Brace and Wold.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler S. M., Saiz C., Rivas S. F., Vendramini C. M. M., Almeida L. S., Mundim M. C., Franco A. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Werner P. H. (1991). The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test: An instrument for testing and teaching. Journal of Adolescent y Adult Literacy, 34(6), 494. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/openview/c276907d387feded6ac6c65788b73bef/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=42001">www.proquest.com/openview/c276907d387feded6ac6c65788b73bef/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=42001</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zúñiga M. (2015). Las competencias de pensamiento crítico y liderazgo colaborativo en las prácticas de psicología organizacional. Divulgare boletín científico de la escuela superior de Actopan, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.29057/esa.v2i4.1625</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181917620-15"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is derived from the project "Risk and Protection Factors Associated with Risk Behaviors and Problems Affecting Mental Health in Children and Adolescents: Understanding, Analysis and Modification of Risk and Protection Factors Associated with Risk Behaviors", with funding code PSIPHD-4-2023, of the Faculty of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, of the Universidad de La Sabana.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernando Riveros Munévar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0414-674X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Data are available upon request to the authors.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By María-Paula Rodríguez-Rojas; Ana-María Ramírez-Segura; Pedro Valenzuela-Mora; Julien Dampuré and Fernando Riveros Munévar</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1456439
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale: Design and Validation in a Colombian Population
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22María-Paula+Rodríguez-Rojas%22">María-Paula Rodríguez-Rojas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ana-María+Ramírez-Segura%22">Ana-María Ramírez-Segura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pedro+Valenzuela-Mora%22">Pedro Valenzuela-Mora</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julien+Dampuré%22">Julien Dampuré</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fernando+Riveros+Munévar%22">Fernando Riveros Munévar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0414-674X">0000-0002-0414-674X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22SAGE+Open%22"><i>SAGE Open</i></searchLink>. 2024 14(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish%22">Spanish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Colombia%22">Colombia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/21582440241297418
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2158-2440
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Critical thinking stands out as one of the most important cognitive abilities needed for effective adaptation to a knowledge-based society in the 21st century. Despite its significance, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the conceptual and methodological frameworks for measuring it. This study aimed to design and validate a comprehensive assessment scale for critical thinking. A specification table was constructed based on the critical thinking components agreed upon in the current literature, from which corresponding items were formulated and subsequently validated by expert judges. Following adjustments to the test, 258 Colombian participants completed it. Sample adequacy (KMO), Bartlett's sphericity, and collinearity were confirmed, and the results underwent exploratory factor analysis. Reliability analysis was conducted using McDonald's [omega], Cronbach's [alpha], Guttman's [lambda]6, and Greatest Lower Bound (GLB) statistics. The final test comprised 17 items organized into 2 constituent factors, demonstrating robust content and internal structure validity, as well as high levels of precision and internal consistency (overall GLB of 0.93). The Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale (CTES) exhibits validity and reliability for use within the Colombian population. Its adaptation for other contexts and countries, both Spanish and English-speaking, is recommended. The Spanish version, along with the validated English version for potential adaptations, and scoring norms are provided in the attached documents.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1456439
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1456439
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/21582440241297418
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colombia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Critical Thinking Evaluation Scale: Design and Validation in a Colombian Population
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: María-Paula Rodríguez-Rojas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ana-María Ramírez-Segura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pedro Valenzuela-Mora
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Julien Dampuré
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fernando Riveros Munévar
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2158-2440
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 14
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: SAGE Open
              Type: main
ResultId 1