This test measures health science undergraduate and graduate students' CTS.
Although test items are set in health sciences and clinical practice contexts, test takers are not required to have discipline-specific health sciences knowledge.
A number of critical thinking skills inventories and measures have been developed: Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) Cornell Critical Thinking Test California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) Professional Judgment Rating Form (PJRF) Teaching for Thinking Student Course Evaluation Form Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric Peer Evaluation of Group Presentation Form Excluding the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Facione and Facione developed the critical thinking skills instruments listed above.
However, it is important to point out that all of these measures are of questionable utility for dental educators because their content is general rather than dental education specific. Purposes of Critical Thinking Skills Instruments Used by professors and students to rate learning outcomes or presentations on critical thinking skills and dispositions.
Scores of .70 or higher indicate that the instrument has high reliability when the stakes are moderate.
Scores of .80 and higher are appropriate when the stakes are high.
Because contemporary thinking about curriculum is interested in student learning, this form was developed to address differences in pedagogy and subject matter, learning outcomes, student demographics, and course level characteristic of education today.
This form also grew out of a "one size fits all" approach to teaching evaluations and a recognition of the limitations of this practice.
For this reason, the test may have limited utility in dental education (78).
Preliminary estimates of internal consistency show that overall KR-20 coefficients range from .77 to .83.79 The instrument has moderate reliability on analysis and inference subscales, although the factor loadings appear adequate.