critical thinking insight by insight assessment

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory

Get data for Admissions Assessing Critical Thinking Mindset Student Advising and Success Accreditation Curricular Evaluation Educational Research

The  California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)  is the premier instrument for assessing critical thinking mindset and provides valid and reliable data for individuals and for groups. The  CCTDI  is an educational assessment of the mindset dimension of critical thinking.  It is designed for use with undergraduate and graduate students. Independent scholars have demonstrated the importance of these mindset attributes in cultures around the world.  Clients most commonly use the  CCTDI  for admissions, advising, studies of curriculum effectiveness, and the documentation of student learning outcomes.

For assessment specs, administration, metrics reported, and more, scroll down. Contact us by using the “Request A Quote” button to ask a question. Or phone us at 650-697-5628 to speak with an assessment services client support specialist.

Seamless Testing. Results You Can Trust.

Higher education.

The CCTDI is calibrated for undergraduate, graduate level college students and the adult learners across all fields of study.

Administration

Administered online with a secure, multi-lingual interface, it’s user-friendly and accessible anywhere.

Support Materials

User Manual includes all needed information about administering the assessment and interpreting the resulting individual and group scores.

Assessment Specs

30 minutes timed administration; 75 engaging, Likert-style agree/disagree items.

Deliverables

Group graphics with statistical summary of scores; Excel spreadsheet of responses to all custom demographic questions, and all scores for each person tested. Optional individual score reports for administrators and/or test takers.

Results Reported

Metrics include scores for 7 critical thinking mindset attributes: truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, Confidence in Reasoning, Inquisitiveness, and Cognitive Maturity.

All of the CCTDI metrics are on a 60-point scale with a corresponding qualitative rating (Superior, Strong, Moderate, Weak, Not Manifested).

Available in English, Arabic, Chinese Simplified, Chinese Traditional, Dutch, Farsi, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Icelandic, Indonesian-Bahasa, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Norwegian, Portuguese, Portuguese-Brazil, Spanish, Thai, and Turkish languages.

CCTDI provides seven mindset attributes needed by the critical thinker. Items are drawn from a scientifically developed and tested item pool.

• Truth-seeking:  Courage to follow reasons and evidence wherever they lead
• Open-mindedness: Willingness to consider a variety of alternative opinions
• Analyticity (Foresight): Consistent effort to anticipate consequences
• Systematicity (Focus): Habit of taking an orderly and organized approach to problem-solving
• Confidence in Reasoning: Disciplined reliance on well-reasoned judgment
• Inquisitiveness:  Continuous attention to and desire for learning
• Cognitive Maturity:  Expectation of making timely, well considered judgments

The  California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory  Report Package includes an individual test-taker report for each person assessed and group summary reports for each group and sub-group in the sample.

Reports are generated immediately after the conclusion of testing and are available for clients to download making real time assessment possible. Read more about how our  customer support specialists work with clients to select their reporting options on our Services tab or contact us for a consultation.

Group Analytics

• Clients can generate and download Excel spreadsheet files of all scores (Truth-seeking, Open-mindedness, Analyticity, Systematicity, Confidence in Reason, Inquisitiveness, and Maturity of Judgment- the seven mindset attributes needed by the critical thinker). At the option of the client, these also include the responses to optional custom demographic questions added by the client to the assessment profile.
• Presentation-ready tables and graphic representations of the score distribution for each of the seven CCTDI mindset metrics.
• Customers who have added custom demographic questions can generate sub-group reports for these variables, or for specific testing sessions or time periods. 

Optional Individual Test-Taker Reports

• Scores for each of the seven CCTDI mindset metrics are reported on a 60-point scale accompanied with a qualitative interpretation (Strong Negative, Negative, Inconsistent, Positive, Strong Positive).
• The Individual Test Taker Report can be pushed to an email address of the client’s choosing (for example, to an admissions office email, institutional assessment email, dean’s office email, etc.).
• The client controls whether individual reports are made available to the test-taker.

Need to expedite your project?  We can have your first online testing assignment available for your students within 24 hours.  Request a Quote or get started by calling 650-697-5628 and speaking with one of our assessment specialists today.

Unlock your exclusive access to our resource library, training tools.

 Understand the depth of our metrics with hands-on tools designed to elucidate the reasoning behind our results. These tools empower you to interpret and apply our data in your professional journey.

Published Articles

Explore how our products are used in real-world scenarios, with comprehensive studies that showcase their impact and effectiveness.

Analytical Reports

Delve into critical thinking insights from our founders, offering fresh perspectives and groundbreaking approaches.

Your subscription includes access to our resource library and periodic emails that keep you informed and ahead in your field. Your privacy is important to us. We promise to keep your information safe and never spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Critical Thinking Insight

Check out these authentic reasoning skills tests and mindset evaluation tools. these are based on the employment and educational tests we provide to businesses, health care agencies, colleges and high schools around the world. these kinds of quality instruments are finally available for your personal use. you not only get your own results, but personalized coaching based on how well you do. -------------- tests in this app -------------- practice with the free sample reasoning skills questions and sample reasoning mindset items. then challenge yourself with these tools: - my learning mind - ages 5-10 - my learning mind - ages 11-17 - my thinking mindset - my thinking skills - my leadership potential -------------- personalized results -------------- as soon as you submit your responses to the questions on a test, the app delivers your results. more than scores only, you receive tailored messages to help you interpret your scores and specific coaching suggestions to help you grow even stronger in each area covered by the test. -------------- easy to use -------------- the app guides you smoothly along from test selection to your personalized results. test instructions are simple, short and clear. you can go back and forth between questions on a test and change your answers if you wish. you can skip questions on any test if you wish. you are never stuck with an answer you do not want to give, and never forced to answer any question. the clock does not start on a timed test until you say “ok.” type fonts are big and easy to read, the images bright, and the answer choices are clearly identified. the interface is interactive, and your options at every stage are always easy to see. -------------- features -------------- skills tests use the familiar multiple choice format. mindset measures use the familiar “agree-disagree” format. choose from free sample tests and more detailed and challenging in-app purchase tests. running count-down clock always lets you know how much time you have remaining. personalized reports provide score results, interpretive commentary, and coaching for growth. no cutesy sound effects or annoying commercials distract you from doing your best thinking. -------------- updates -------------- over time we will be adding more testing options for you. forthcoming mindset measures will focus on other personal development areas, and skills tests will bring different levels and kinds of reasoning challenges. planned updates include multi lingual and esl opportunities, as well as skills and mindset instruments designed specifically for seniors and for children. -------------- about insight assessment -------------- insight assessment supports thinking well by providing world class instruments to measure those core critical thinking skills and habits of mind essential for reflective human problem solving and thoughtful, fair-minded decision making. our products are used throughout the world. follow us on facebook, linkedin, twitter or rss. since 1990 we have provided the world famous california critical thinking skills test and the california critical thinking disposition inventory for college level testing. we offer the insight leadership and work ethic tools for businesses and professional use. we publish tests for k-12 critical thinking and learning orientation. our lead test developers authored the highly regarded self-development text think critically. we always make free teaching and learning resources available at our web site: www.insightassessment.com, 2/1/2016 10:00:44 pm.

Insight Basecamp

Buy any combination of 3 or more skill builders, mindset boosters, and deep dives, and receive a 5% discount. discount does not apply to ceu packs, quizzes, or surveys., mindset boosters.

• 2-Hour interactive Self-Development Activities
• Focus on Positive Thinking Habits of Mind
• Engaging Real-World Examples
• Tips on Building Each Mindset Attribute
• Questions to Bolster Thinking Mindset
• Insights to Highlight Key Topics
• Detailed Explanations to Clarify Key Concepts
• Thought Experiments to Deepen Understanding
• Detailed On-Screen Feedback About Your Mindset

Courageous Truth-Seeking | Boost Your Critical Thinking Mindset

Inventive Foresight

Resourceful Leadership

Thoughtful Resilience

Skill builders.

• 2-Hour Interactive Self-Development Activities
• Focus on Building Specific Reasoning Skills
• Tips on Relating Skills to Mindset Attributes
• Questions to Apply Reasoning Skills
• Detailed On-Screen Feedback on Specific Skill Metrics

Analysis and Interpretation Level 1: Verbal Communications and Credibility

Analysis and Interpretation Level 2: Numeric Communications and Graphics

Reasoning in Ambiguous Contexts Level 1: Best Explanation

Reasoning in Ambiguous Contexts Level 2: Beguiling Fallacies

Reasoning in Precise Contexts Level 1: Achieving Certainty

Reasoning in Precise Contexts Level 2: Logical Fallacies

• 60-Minute Short Courses on How Humans Think
• Engaging, Easy-to-Read Course Material
• Wide Variety of Real-Life Examples
• Reflective Exercises to Deepen Understanding
• Questions to Reinforce Central Ideas
• Scientifically Grounded Course Material
• Detailed On-Screen Personal Feedback

Bottom-Up Experiential Reasoning

Optimize Decision-Making Part 1 – Reactive and Reflective Thinking

Optimize decision-making part 2 – arriving at a dominant option.

This-Is-Like-That Comparative Reasoning

Top-Down Axiomatic Reasoning

Continuing education units.

• 5-Hour (.5 CEU) Interactive Course Pack
• No Prior Knowledge Required
• 24/7 Access to Course Dashboard
• Lifetime Access to Course Content & Results
• Start Instantly and Learn on Your Own Schedule
• Questions with Answers and Debriefs
• Broad Spectrum of Real-World Examples
• Receive Detailed Personal Feedback
• Download Summary, Scores, and Time Learning
• CEU’s awarded by Saint Mary’s College of California

How to Analyze and Interpret Verbal and Numerical Communications (.5 CEU)

How to Reason Well in Ambiguous Contexts (.5 CEU)

How to Reason Well in Precise Contexts (.5 CEU)

How to Understand Human Thinking and Optimize Decision-Making (.5 CEU)

Quizzes & surveys.

• Scientifically Designed Self-Evaluation Tools
• Quizzes to Focus on Reasoning Skills
• Brief Surveys to Assess Habits of Mind
• Wide Variety of Realistic Question Topics
• Tools for All Ages
• Score Reports on Skills and Mindset Metrics
• Detailed On-Screen Feedback and Tips for Further Growth

Critical Thinking Keys – A Survey of Key Habits of Mind

Critical Thinking Strategies – A Reasoning Skills Quiz

My Learning Mind: Mindset Survey for Children Ages 5-10

My Learning Mind: Mindset Survey For Young People Ages 11-17

Insight basecamp, grow your critical thinking with confidence.

• View All Products
• Skill Builders
• Mindset Boosters
• Continuing Education Units
• Quizzes & Surveys
• Products for Organizations

Get Started

• Create an Account or Login
• Think Critically Blog
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Insight Assessment

Contact the Service Desk

Send a message to the service team and we will contact you in 24-72 hours. 

Dive Deep into Human Understanding.

Sign up for our email list and receive your bogo discount code. as a member of our email list, you'll be the first to know about new courses and special promotions., we don’t spam. read our privacy policy for more info..

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, performance assessment of critical thinking: conceptualization, design, and implementation.

• 1 Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, United States
• 2 Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
• 3 Department of Business and Economics Education, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

Enhancing students’ critical thinking (CT) skills is an essential goal of higher education. This article presents a systematic approach to conceptualizing and measuring CT. CT generally comprises the following mental processes: identifying, evaluating, and analyzing a problem; interpreting information; synthesizing evidence; and reporting a conclusion. We further posit that CT also involves dealing with dilemmas involving ambiguity or conflicts among principles and contradictory information. We argue that performance assessment provides the most realistic—and most credible—approach to measuring CT. From this conceptualization and construct definition, we describe one possible framework for building performance assessments of CT with attention to extended performance tasks within the assessment system. The framework is a product of an ongoing, collaborative effort, the International Performance Assessment of Learning (iPAL). The framework comprises four main aspects: (1) The storyline describes a carefully curated version of a complex, real-world situation. (2) The challenge frames the task to be accomplished (3). A portfolio of documents in a range of formats is drawn from multiple sources chosen to have specific characteristics. (4) The scoring rubric comprises a set of scales each linked to a facet of the construct. We discuss a number of use cases, as well as the challenges that arise with the use and valid interpretation of performance assessments. The final section presents elements of the iPAL research program that involve various refinements and extensions of the assessment framework, a number of empirical studies, along with linkages to current work in online reading and information processing.

Introduction

In their mission statements, most colleges declare that a principal goal is to develop students’ higher-order cognitive skills such as critical thinking (CT) and reasoning (e.g., Shavelson, 2010 ; Hyytinen et al., 2019 ). The importance of CT is echoed by business leaders ( Association of American Colleges and Universities [AACU], 2018 ), as well as by college faculty (for curricular analyses in Germany, see e.g., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2018 ). Indeed, in the 2019 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), 93% of faculty reported that they “very much” or “quite a bit” structure their courses to support student development with respect to thinking critically and analytically. In a listing of 21st century skills, CT was the most highly ranked among FSSE respondents ( Indiana University, 2019 ). Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence that many college students do not develop these skills to a satisfactory standard ( Arum and Roksa, 2011 ; Shavelson et al., 2019 ; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2019 ). This state of affairs represents a serious challenge to higher education – and to society at large.

In view of the importance of CT, as well as evidence of substantial variation in its development during college, its proper measurement is essential to tracking progress in skill development and to providing useful feedback to both teachers and learners. Feedback can help focus students’ attention on key skill areas in need of improvement, and provide insight to teachers on choices of pedagogical strategies and time allocation. Moreover, comparative studies at the program and institutional level can inform higher education leaders and policy makers.

The conceptualization and definition of CT presented here is closely related to models of information processing and online reasoning, the skills that are the focus of this special issue. These two skills are especially germane to the learning environments that college students experience today when much of their academic work is done online. Ideally, students should be capable of more than naïve Internet search, followed by copy-and-paste (e.g., McGrew et al., 2017 ); rather, for example, they should be able to critically evaluate both sources of evidence and the quality of the evidence itself in light of a given purpose ( Leu et al., 2020 ).

In this paper, we present a systematic approach to conceptualizing CT. From that conceptualization and construct definition, we present one possible framework for building performance assessments of CT with particular attention to extended performance tasks within the test environment. The penultimate section discusses some of the challenges that arise with the use and valid interpretation of performance assessment scores. We conclude the paper with a section on future perspectives in an emerging field of research – the iPAL program.

Conceptual Foundations, Definition and Measurement of Critical Thinking

In this section, we briefly review the concept of CT and its definition. In accordance with the principles of evidence-centered design (ECD; Mislevy et al., 2003 ), the conceptualization drives the measurement of the construct; that is, implementation of ECD directly links aspects of the assessment framework to specific facets of the construct. We then argue that performance assessments designed in accordance with such an assessment framework provide the most realistic—and most credible—approach to measuring CT. The section concludes with a sketch of an approach to CT measurement grounded in performance assessment .

Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking

Taxonomies of 21st century skills ( Pellegrino and Hilton, 2012 ) abound, and it is neither surprising that CT appears in most taxonomies of learning, nor that there are many different approaches to defining and operationalizing the construct of CT. There is, however, general agreement that CT is a multifaceted construct ( Liu et al., 2014 ). Liu et al. (2014) identified five key facets of CT: (i) evaluating evidence and the use of evidence; (ii) analyzing arguments; (iii) understanding implications and consequences; (iv) developing sound arguments; and (v) understanding causation and explanation.

There is empirical support for these facets from college faculty. A 2016–2017 survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles found that a substantial majority of faculty respondents “frequently” encouraged students to: (i) evaluate the quality or reliability of the information they receive; (ii) recognize biases that affect their thinking; (iii) analyze multiple sources of information before coming to a conclusion; and (iv) support their opinions with a logical argument ( Stolzenberg et al., 2019 ).

There is general agreement that CT involves the following mental processes: identifying, evaluating, and analyzing a problem; interpreting information; synthesizing evidence; and reporting a conclusion (e.g., Erwin and Sebrell, 2003 ; Kosslyn and Nelson, 2017 ; Shavelson et al., 2018 ). We further suggest that CT includes dealing with dilemmas of ambiguity or conflict among principles and contradictory information ( Oser and Biedermann, 2020 ).

Importantly, Oser and Biedermann (2020) posit that CT can be manifested at three levels. The first level, Critical Analysis , is the most complex of the three levels. Critical Analysis requires both knowledge in a specific discipline (conceptual) and procedural analytical (deduction, inclusion, etc.) knowledge. The second level is Critical Reflection , which involves more generic skills “… necessary for every responsible member of a society” (p. 90). It is “a basic attitude that must be taken into consideration if (new) information is questioned to be true or false, reliable or not reliable, moral or immoral etc.” (p. 90). To engage in Critical Reflection, one needs not only apply analytic reasoning, but also adopt a reflective stance toward the political, social, and other consequences of choosing a course of action. It also involves analyzing the potential motives of various actors involved in the dilemma of interest. The third level, Critical Alertness , involves questioning one’s own or others’ thinking from a skeptical point of view.

Wheeler and Haertel (1993) categorized higher-order skills, such as CT, into two types: (i) when solving problems and making decisions in professional and everyday life, for instance, related to civic affairs and the environment; and (ii) in situations where various mental processes (e.g., comparing, evaluating, and justifying) are developed through formal instruction, usually in a discipline. Hence, in both settings, individuals must confront situations that typically involve a problematic event, contradictory information, and possibly conflicting principles. Indeed, there is an ongoing debate concerning whether CT should be evaluated using generic or discipline-based assessments ( Nagel et al., 2020 ). Whether CT skills are conceptualized as generic or discipline-specific has implications for how they are assessed and how they are incorporated into the classroom.

In the iPAL project, CT is characterized as a multifaceted construct that comprises conceptualizing, analyzing, drawing inferences or synthesizing information, evaluating claims, and applying the results of these reasoning processes to various purposes (e.g., solve a problem, decide on a course of action, find an answer to a given question or reach a conclusion) ( Shavelson et al., 2019 ). In the course of carrying out a CT task, an individual typically engages in activities such as specifying or clarifying a problem; deciding what information is relevant to the problem; evaluating the trustworthiness of information; avoiding judgmental errors based on “fast thinking”; avoiding biases and stereotypes; recognizing different perspectives and how they can reframe a situation; considering the consequences of alternative courses of actions; and communicating clearly and concisely decisions and actions. The order in which activities are carried out can vary among individuals and the processes can be non-linear and reciprocal.

In this article, we focus on generic CT skills. The importance of these skills derives not only from their utility in academic and professional settings, but also the many situations involving challenging moral and ethical issues – often framed in terms of conflicting principles and/or interests – to which individuals have to apply these skills ( Kegan, 1994 ; Tessier-Lavigne, 2020 ). Conflicts and dilemmas are ubiquitous in the contexts in which adults find themselves: work, family, civil society. Moreover, to remain viable in the global economic environment – one characterized by increased competition and advances in second generation artificial intelligence (AI) – today’s college students will need to continually develop and leverage their CT skills. Ideally, colleges offer a supportive environment in which students can develop and practice effective approaches to reasoning about and acting in learning, professional and everyday situations.

Measurement of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a multifaceted construct that poses many challenges to those who would develop relevant and valid assessments. For those interested in current approaches to the measurement of CT that are not the focus of this paper, consult Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2018) .

In this paper, we have singled out performance assessment as it offers important advantages to measuring CT. Extant tests of CT typically employ response formats such as forced-choice or short-answer, and scenario-based tasks (for an overview, see Liu et al., 2014 ). They all suffer from moderate to severe construct underrepresentation; that is, they fail to capture important facets of the CT construct such as perspective taking and communication. High fidelity performance tasks are viewed as more authentic in that they provide a problem context and require responses that are more similar to what individuals confront in the real world than what is offered by traditional multiple-choice items ( Messick, 1994 ; Braun, 2019 ). This greater verisimilitude promises higher levels of construct representation and lower levels of construct-irrelevant variance. Such performance tasks have the capacity to measure facets of CT that are imperfectly assessed, if at all, using traditional assessments ( Lane and Stone, 2006 ; Braun, 2019 ; Shavelson et al., 2019 ). However, these assertions must be empirically validated, and the measures should be subjected to psychometric analyses. Evidence of the reliability, validity, and interpretative challenges of performance assessment (PA) are extensively detailed in Davey et al. (2015) .

We adopt the following definition of performance assessment:

A performance assessment (sometimes called a work sample when assessing job performance) … is an activity or set of activities that requires test takers, either individually or in groups, to generate products or performances in response to a complex, most often real-world task. These products and performances provide observable evidence bearing on test takers’ knowledge, skills, and abilities—their competencies—in completing the assessment ( Davey et al., 2015 , p. 10).

A performance assessment typically includes an extended performance task and short constructed-response and selected-response (i.e., multiple-choice) tasks (for examples, see Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia and Shavelson, 2019 ). In this paper, we refer to both individual performance- and constructed-response tasks as performance tasks (PT) (For an example, see Table 1 in section “iPAL Assessment Framework”).

Table 1. The iPAL assessment framework.

An Approach to Performance Assessment of Critical Thinking: The iPAL Program

The approach to CT presented here is the result of ongoing work undertaken by the International Performance Assessment of Learning collaborative (iPAL 1 ). iPAL is an international consortium of volunteers, primarily from academia, who have come together to address the dearth in higher education of research and practice in measuring CT with performance tasks ( Shavelson et al., 2018 ). In this section, we present iPAL’s assessment framework as the basis of measuring CT, with examples along the way.

iPAL Background

The iPAL assessment framework builds on the Council of Aid to Education’s Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The CLA was designed to measure cross-disciplinary, generic competencies, such as CT, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication ( Klein et al., 2007 ; Shavelson, 2010 ). Ideally, each PA contained an extended PT (e.g., examining a range of evidential materials related to the crash of an aircraft) and two short PT’s: one in which students either critique an argument or provide a solution in response to a real-world societal issue.

Motivated by considerations of adequate reliability, in 2012, the CLA was later modified to create the CLA+. The CLA+ includes two subtests: a PT and a 25-item Selected Response Question (SRQ) section. The PT presents a document or problem statement and an assignment based on that document which elicits an open-ended response. The CLA+ added the SRQ section (which is not linked substantively to the PT scenario) to increase the number of student responses to obtain more reliable estimates of performance at the student-level than could be achieved with a single PT ( Zahner, 2013 ; Davey et al., 2015 ).

iPAL Assessment Framework

Methodological foundations.

The iPAL framework evolved from the Collegiate Learning Assessment developed by Klein et al. (2007) . It was also informed by the results from the AHELO pilot study ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2012 , 2013 ), as well as the KoKoHs research program in Germany (for an overview see, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2017 , 2020 ). The ongoing refinement of the iPAL framework has been guided in part by the principles of Evidence Centered Design (ECD) ( Mislevy et al., 2003 ; Mislevy and Haertel, 2006 ; Haertel and Fujii, 2017 ).

In educational measurement, an assessment framework plays a critical intermediary role between the theoretical formulation of the construct and the development of the assessment instrument containing tasks (or items) intended to elicit evidence with respect to that construct ( Mislevy et al., 2003 ). Builders of the assessment framework draw on the construct theory and operationalize it in a way that provides explicit guidance to PT’s developers. Thus, the framework should reflect the relevant facets of the construct, where relevance is determined by substantive theory or an appropriate alternative such as behavioral samples from real-world situations of interest (criterion-sampling; McClelland, 1973 ), as well as the intended use(s) (for an example, see Shavelson et al., 2019 ). By following the requirements and guidelines embodied in the framework, instrument developers strengthen the claim of construct validity for the instrument ( Messick, 1994 ).

An assessment framework can be specified at different levels of granularity: an assessment battery (“omnibus” assessment, for an example see below), a single performance task, or a specific component of an assessment ( Shavelson, 2010 ; Davey et al., 2015 ). In the iPAL program, a performance assessment comprises one or more extended performance tasks and additional selected-response and short constructed-response items. The focus of the framework specified below is on a single PT intended to elicit evidence with respect to some facets of CT, such as the evaluation of the trustworthiness of the documents provided and the capacity to address conflicts of principles.

From the ECD perspective, an assessment is an instrument for generating information to support an evidentiary argument and, therefore, the intended inferences (claims) must guide each stage of the design process. The construct of interest is operationalized through the Student Model , which represents the target knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as the relationships among them. The student model should also make explicit the assumptions regarding student competencies in foundational skills or content knowledge. The Task Model specifies the features of the problems or items posed to the respondent, with the goal of eliciting the evidence desired. The assessment framework also describes the collection of task models comprising the instrument, with considerations of construct validity, various psychometric characteristics (e.g., reliability) and practical constraints (e.g., testing time and cost). The student model provides grounds for evidence of validity, especially cognitive validity; namely, that the students are thinking critically in responding to the task(s).

In the present context, the target construct (CT) is the competence of individuals to think critically, which entails solving complex, real-world problems, and clearly communicating their conclusions or recommendations for action based on trustworthy, relevant and unbiased information. The situations, drawn from actual events, are challenging and may arise in many possible settings. In contrast to more reductionist approaches to assessment development, the iPAL approach and framework rests on the assumption that properly addressing these situational demands requires the application of a constellation of CT skills appropriate to the particular task presented (e.g., Shavelson, 2010 , 2013 ). For a PT, the assessment framework must also specify the rubric by which the responses will be evaluated. The rubric must be properly linked to the target construct so that the resulting score profile constitutes evidence that is both relevant and interpretable in terms of the student model (for an example, see Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2019 ).

iPAL Task Framework

The iPAL ‘omnibus’ framework comprises four main aspects: A storyline , a challenge , a document library , and a scoring rubric . Table 1 displays these aspects, brief descriptions of each, and the corresponding examples drawn from an iPAL performance assessment (Version adapted from original in Hyytinen and Toom, 2019 ). Storylines are drawn from various domains; for example, the worlds of business, public policy, civics, medicine, and family. They often involve moral and/or ethical considerations. Deriving an appropriate storyline from a real-world situation requires careful consideration of which features are to be kept in toto , which adapted for purposes of the assessment, and which to be discarded. Framing the challenge demands care in wording so that there is minimal ambiguity in what is required of the respondent. The difficulty of the challenge depends, in large part, on the nature and extent of the information provided in the document library , the amount of scaffolding included, as well as the scope of the required response. The amount of information and the scope of the challenge should be commensurate with the amount of time available. As is evident from the table, the characteristics of the documents in the library are intended to elicit responses related to facets of CT. For example, with regard to bias, the information provided is intended to play to judgmental errors due to fast thinking and/or motivational reasoning. Ideally, the situation should accommodate multiple solutions of varying degrees of merit.

The dimensions of the scoring rubric are derived from the Task Model and Student Model ( Mislevy et al., 2003 ) and signal which features are to be extracted from the response and indicate how they are to be evaluated. There should be a direct link between the evaluation of the evidence and the claims that are made with respect to the key features of the task model and student model . More specifically, the task model specifies the various manipulations embodied in the PA and so informs scoring, while the student model specifies the capacities students employ in more or less effectively responding to the tasks. The score scales for each of the five facets of CT (see section “Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking”) can be specified using appropriate behavioral anchors (for examples, see Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia and Shavelson, 2019 ). Of particular importance is the evaluation of the response with respect to the last dimension of the scoring rubric; namely, the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the argument, building on the explicit or implicit characteristics related to the first five dimensions. The scoring process must be monitored carefully to ensure that (trained) raters are judging each response based on the same types of features and evaluation criteria ( Braun, 2019 ) as indicated by interrater agreement coefficients.

The scoring rubric of the iPAL omnibus framework can be modified for specific tasks ( Lane and Stone, 2006 ). This generic rubric helps ensure consistency across rubrics for different storylines. For example, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2019 , p. 473) used the following scoring scheme:

Based on our construct definition of CT and its four dimensions: (D1-Info) recognizing and evaluating information, (D2-Decision) recognizing and evaluating arguments and making decisions, (D3-Conseq) recognizing and evaluating the consequences of decisions, and (D4-Writing), we developed a corresponding analytic dimensional scoring … The students’ performance is evaluated along the four dimensions, which in turn are subdivided into a total of 23 indicators as (sub)categories of CT … For each dimension, we sought detailed evidence in students’ responses for the indicators and scored them on a six-point Likert-type scale. In order to reduce judgment distortions, an elaborate procedure of ‘behaviorally anchored rating scales’ (Smith and Kendall, 1963) was applied by assigning concrete behavioral expectations to certain scale points (Bernardin et al., 1976). To this end, we defined the scale levels by short descriptions of typical behavior and anchored them with concrete examples. … We trained four raters in 1 day using a specially developed training course to evaluate students’ performance along the 23 indicators clustered into four dimensions (for a description of the rater training, see Klotzer, 2018).

Shavelson et al. (2019) examined the interrater agreement of the scoring scheme developed by Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2019) and “found that with 23 items and 2 raters the generalizability (“reliability”) coefficient for total scores to be 0.74 (with 4 raters, 0.84)” ( Shavelson et al., 2019 , p. 15). In the study by Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2019 , p. 478) three score profiles were identified (low-, middle-, and high-performer) for students. Proper interpretation of such profiles requires care. For example, there may be multiple possible explanations for low scores such as poor CT skills, a lack of a disposition to engage with the challenge, or the two attributes jointly. These alternative explanations for student performance can potentially pose a threat to the evidentiary argument. In this case, auxiliary information may be available to aid in resolving the ambiguity. For example, student responses to selected- and short-constructed-response items in the PA can provide relevant information about the levels of the different skills possessed by the student. When sufficient data are available, the scores can be modeled statistically and/or qualitatively in such a way as to bring them to bear on the technical quality or interpretability of the claims of the assessment: reliability, validity, and utility evidence ( Davey et al., 2015 ; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2019 ). These kinds of concerns are less critical when PT’s are used in classroom settings. The instructor can draw on other sources of evidence, including direct discussion with the student.

Use of iPAL Performance Assessments in Educational Practice: Evidence From Preliminary Validation Studies

The assessment framework described here supports the development of a PT in a general setting. Many modifications are possible and, indeed, desirable. If the PT is to be more deeply embedded in a certain discipline (e.g., economics, law, or medicine), for example, then the framework must specify characteristics of the narrative and the complementary documents as to the breadth and depth of disciplinary knowledge that is represented.

At present, preliminary field trials employing the omnibus framework (i.e., a full set of documents) indicated that 60 min was generally an inadequate amount of time for students to engage with the full set of complementary documents and to craft a complete response to the challenge (for an example, see Shavelson et al., 2019 ). Accordingly, it would be helpful to develop modified frameworks for PT’s that require substantially less time. For an example, see a short performance assessment of civic online reasoning, requiring response times from 10 to 50 min ( Wineburg et al., 2016 ). Such assessment frameworks could be derived from the omnibus framework by focusing on a reduced number of facets of CT, and specifying the characteristics of the complementary documents to be included – or, perhaps, choices among sets of documents. In principle, one could build a ‘family’ of PT’s, each using the same (or nearly the same) storyline and a subset of the full collection of complementary documents.

Paul and Elder (2007) argue that the goal of CT assessments should be to provide faculty with important information about how well their instruction supports the development of students’ CT. In that spirit, the full family of PT’s could represent all facets of the construct while affording instructors and students more specific insights on strengths and weaknesses with respect to particular facets of CT. Moreover, the framework should be expanded to include the design of a set of short answer and/or multiple choice items to accompany the PT. Ideally, these additional items would be based on the same narrative as the PT to collect more nuanced information on students’ precursor skills such as reading comprehension, while enhancing the overall reliability of the assessment. Areas where students are under-prepared could be addressed before, or even in parallel with the development of the focal CT skills. The parallel approach follows the co-requisite model of developmental education. In other settings (e.g., for summative assessment), these complementary items would be administered after the PT to augment the evidence in relation to the various claims. The full PT taking 90 min or more could serve as a capstone assessment.

As we transition from simply delivering paper-based assessments by computer to taking full advantage of the affordances of a digital platform, we should learn from the hard-won lessons of the past so that we can make swifter progress with fewer missteps. In that regard, we must take validity as the touchstone – assessment design, development and deployment must all be tightly linked to the operational definition of the CT construct. Considerations of reliability and practicality come into play with various use cases that highlight different purposes for the assessment (for future perspectives, see next section).

The iPAL assessment framework represents a feasible compromise between commercial, standardized assessments of CT (e.g., Liu et al., 2014 ), on the one hand, and, on the other, freedom for individual faculty to develop assessment tasks according to idiosyncratic models. It imposes a degree of standardization on both task development and scoring, while still allowing some flexibility for faculty to tailor the assessment to meet their unique needs. In so doing, it addresses a key weakness of the AAC&U’s VALUE initiative 2 (retrieved 5/7/2020) that has achieved wide acceptance among United States colleges.

The VALUE initiative has produced generic scoring rubrics for 15 domains including CT, problem-solving and written communication. A rubric for a particular skill domain (e.g., critical thinking) has five to six dimensions with four ordered performance levels for each dimension (1 = lowest, 4 = highest). The performance levels are accompanied by language that is intended to clearly differentiate among levels. 3 Faculty are asked to submit student work products from a senior level course that is intended to yield evidence with respect to student learning outcomes in a particular domain and that, they believe, can elicit performances at the highest level. The collection of work products is then graded by faculty from other institutions who have been trained to apply the rubrics.

A principal difficulty is that there is neither a common framework to guide the design of the challenge, nor any control on task complexity and difficulty. Consequently, there is substantial heterogeneity in the quality and evidential value of the submitted responses. This also causes difficulties with task scoring and inter-rater reliability. Shavelson et al. (2009) discuss some of the problems arising with non-standardized collections of student work.

In this context, one advantage of the iPAL framework is that it can provide valuable guidance and an explicit structure for faculty in developing performance tasks for both instruction and formative assessment. When faculty design assessments, their focus is typically on content coverage rather than other potentially important characteristics, such as the degree of construct representation and the adequacy of their scoring procedures ( Braun, 2019 ).

Concluding Reflections

Challenges to interpretation and implementation.

Performance tasks such as those generated by iPAL are attractive instruments for assessing CT skills (e.g., Shavelson, 2010 ; Shavelson et al., 2019 ). The attraction mainly rests on the assumption that elaborated PT’s are more authentic (direct) and more completely capture facets of the target construct (i.e., possess greater construct representation) than the widely used selected-response tests. However, as Messick (1994) noted authenticity is a “promissory note” that must be redeemed with empirical research. In practice, there are trade-offs among authenticity, construct validity, and psychometric quality such as reliability ( Davey et al., 2015 ).

One reason for Messick (1994) caution is that authenticity does not guarantee construct validity. The latter must be established by drawing on multiple sources of evidence ( American Educational Research Association et al., 2014 ). Following the ECD principles in designing and developing the PT, as well as the associated scoring rubrics, constitutes an important type of evidence. Further, as Leighton (2019) argues, response process data (“cognitive validity”) is needed to validate claims regarding the cognitive complexity of PT’s. Relevant data can be obtained through cognitive laboratory studies involving methods such as think aloud protocols or eye-tracking. Although time-consuming and expensive, such studies can yield not only evidence of validity, but also valuable information to guide refinements of the PT.

Going forward, iPAL PT’s must be subjected to validation studies as recommended in the Standards for Psychological and Educational Testing by American Educational Research Association et al. (2014) . With a particular focus on the criterion “relationships to other variables,” a framework should include assumptions about the theoretically expected relationships among the indicators assessed by the PT, as well as the indicators’ relationships to external variables such as intelligence or prior (task-relevant) knowledge.

Complementing the necessity of evaluating construct validity, there is the need to consider potential sources of construct-irrelevant variance (CIV). One pertains to student motivation, which is typically greater when the stakes are higher. If students are not motivated, then their performance is likely to be impacted by factors unrelated to their (construct-relevant) ability ( Lane and Stone, 2006 ; Braun et al., 2011 ; Shavelson, 2013 ). Differential motivation across groups can also bias comparisons. Student motivation might be enhanced if the PT is administered in the context of a course with the promise of generating useful feedback on students’ skill profiles.

Construct-irrelevant variance can also occur when students are not equally prepared for the format of the PT or fully appreciate the response requirements. This source of CIV could be alleviated by providing students with practice PT’s. Finally, the use of novel forms of documentation, such as those from the Internet, can potentially introduce CIV due to differential familiarity with forms of representation or contents. Interestingly, this suggests that there may be a conflict between enhancing construct representation and reducing CIV.

Another potential source of CIV is related to response evaluation. Even with training, human raters can vary in accuracy and usage of the full score range. In addition, raters may attend to features of responses that are unrelated to the target construct, such as the length of the students’ responses or the frequency of grammatical errors ( Lane and Stone, 2006 ). Some of these sources of variance could be addressed in an online environment, where word processing software could alert students to potential grammatical and spelling errors before they submit their final work product.

Performance tasks generally take longer to administer and are more costly than traditional assessments, making it more difficult to reliably measure student performance ( Messick, 1994 ; Davey et al., 2015 ). Indeed, it is well known that more than one performance task is needed to obtain high reliability ( Shavelson, 2013 ). This is due to both student-task interactions and variability in scoring. Sources of student-task interactions are differential familiarity with the topic ( Hyytinen and Toom, 2019 ) and differential motivation to engage with the task. The level of reliability required, however, depends on the context of use. For use in formative assessment as part of an instructional program, reliability can be lower than use for summative purposes. In the former case, other types of evidence are generally available to support interpretation and guide pedagogical decisions. Further studies are needed to obtain estimates of reliability in typical instructional settings.

With sufficient data, more sophisticated psychometric analyses become possible. One challenge is that the assumption of unidimensionality required for many psychometric models might be untenable for performance tasks ( Davey et al., 2015 ). Davey et al. (2015) provide the example of a mathematics assessment that requires students to demonstrate not only their mathematics skills but also their written communication skills. Although the iPAL framework does not explicitly address students’ reading comprehension and organization skills, students will likely need to call on these abilities to accomplish the task. Moreover, as the operational definition of CT makes evident, the student must not only deploy several skills in responding to the challenge of the PT, but also carry out component tasks in sequence. The former requirement strongly indicates the need for a multi-dimensional IRT model, while the latter suggests that the usual assumption of local item independence may well be problematic ( Lane and Stone, 2006 ). At the same time, the analytic scoring rubric should facilitate the use of latent class analysis to partition data from large groups into meaningful categories ( Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2019 ).

Future Perspectives

Although the iPAL consortium has made substantial progress in the assessment of CT, much remains to be done. Further refinement of existing PT’s and their adaptation to different languages and cultures must continue. To this point, there are a number of examples: The refugee crisis PT (cited in Table 1 ) was translated and adapted from Finnish to US English and then to Colombian Spanish. A PT concerning kidney transplants was translated and adapted from German to US English. Finally, two PT’s based on ‘legacy admissions’ to US colleges were translated and adapted to Colombian Spanish.

With respect to data collection, there is a need for sufficient data to support psychometric analysis of student responses, especially the relationships among the different components of the scoring rubric, as this would inform both task development and response evaluation ( Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2019 ). In addition, more intensive study of response processes through cognitive laboratories and the like are needed to strengthen the evidential argument for construct validity ( Leighton, 2019 ). We are currently conducting empirical studies, collecting data on both iPAL PT’s and other measures of CT. These studies will provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.

At the same time, efforts should be directed at further development to support different ways CT PT’s might be used—i.e., use cases—especially those that call for formative use of PT’s. Incorporating formative assessment into courses can plausibly be expected to improve students’ competency acquisition ( Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al., 2017 ). With suitable choices of storylines, appropriate combinations of (modified) PT’s, supplemented by short-answer and multiple-choice items, could be interwoven into ordinary classroom activities. The supplementary items may be completely separate from the PT’s (as is the case with the CLA+), loosely coupled with the PT’s (as in drawing on the same storyline), or tightly linked to the PT’s (as in requiring elaboration of certain components of the response to the PT).

As an alternative to such integration, stand-alone modules could be embedded in courses to yield evidence of students’ generic CT skills. Core curriculum courses or general education courses offer ideal settings for embedding performance assessments. If these assessments were administered to a representative sample of students in each cohort over their years in college, the results would yield important information on the development of CT skills at a population level. For another example, these PA’s could be used to assess the competence profiles of students entering Bachelor’s or graduate-level programs as a basis for more targeted instructional support.

Thus, in considering different use cases for the assessment of CT, it is evident that several modifications of the iPAL omnibus assessment framework are needed. As noted earlier, assessments built according to this framework are demanding with respect to the extensive preliminary work required by a task and the time required to properly complete it. Thus, it would be helpful to have modified versions of the framework, focusing on one or two facets of the CT construct and calling for a smaller number of supplementary documents. The challenge to the student should be suitably reduced.

Some members of the iPAL collaborative have developed PT’s that are embedded in disciplines such as engineering, law and education ( Crump et al., 2019 ; for teacher education examples, see Jeschke et al., 2019 ). These are proving to be of great interest to various stakeholders and further development is likely. Consequently, it is essential that an appropriate assessment framework be established and implemented. It is both a conceptual and an empirical question as to whether a single framework can guide development in different domains.

Performance Assessment in Online Learning Environment

Over the last 15 years, increasing amounts of time in both college and work are spent using computers and other electronic devices. This has led to formulation of models for the new literacies that attempt to capture some key characteristics of these activities. A prominent example is a model proposed by Leu et al. (2020) . The model frames online reading as a process of problem-based inquiry that calls on five practices to occur during online research and comprehension:

1. Reading to identify important questions,

2. Reading to locate information,

3. Reading to critically evaluate information,

4. Reading to synthesize online information, and

5. Reading and writing to communicate online information.

The parallels with the iPAL definition of CT are evident and suggest there may be benefits to closer links between these two lines of research. For example, a report by Leu et al. (2014) describes empirical studies comparing assessments of online reading using either open-ended or multiple-choice response formats.

The iPAL consortium has begun to take advantage of the affordances of the online environment (for examples, see Schmidt et al. and Nagel et al. in this special issue). Most obviously, Supplementary Materials can now include archival photographs, audio recordings, or videos. Additional tasks might include the online search for relevant documents, though this would add considerably to the time demands. This online search could occur within a simulated Internet environment, as is the case for the IEA’s ePIRLS assessment ( Mullis et al., 2017 ).

The prospect of having access to a wealth of materials that can add to task authenticity is exciting. Yet it can also add ambiguity and information overload. Increased authenticity, then, should be weighed against validity concerns and the time required to absorb the content in these materials. Modifications of the design framework and extensive empirical testing will be required to decide on appropriate trade-offs. A related possibility is to employ some of these materials in short-answer (or even selected-response) items that supplement the main PT. Response formats could include highlighting text or using a drag-and-drop menu to construct a response. Students’ responses could be automatically scored, thereby containing costs. With automated scoring, feedback to students and faculty, including suggestions for next steps in strengthening CT skills, could also be provided without adding to faculty workload. Therefore, taking advantage of the online environment to incorporate new types of supplementary documents should be a high priority and, perhaps, to introduce new response formats as well. Finally, further investigation of the overlap between this formulation of CT and the characterization of online reading promulgated by Leu et al. (2020) is a promising direction to pursue.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets generated for this study are included in the article/supplementary material.

Author Contributions

HB wrote the article. RS, OZ-T, and KB were involved in the preparation and revision of the article and co-wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This study was funded in part by the Spencer Foundation (Grant No. #201700123).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the researchers who have participated in the iPAL program.

• ^ https://www.ipal-rd.com/
• ^ https://www.aacu.org/value
• ^ When test results are reported by means of substantively defined categories, the scoring is termed “criterion-referenced”. This is, in contrast to results, reported as percentiles; such scoring is termed “norm-referenced”.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, D.C: American Educational Research Association.

Google Scholar

Arum, R., and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (n.d.). VALUE: What is value?. Available online at:: https://www.aacu.org/value (accessed May 7, 2020).

Association of American Colleges and Universities [AACU] (2018). Fulfilling the American Dream: Liberal Education and the Future of Work. Available online at:: https://www.aacu.org/research/2018-future-of-work (accessed May 1, 2020).

Braun, H. (2019). Performance assessment and standardization in higher education: a problematic conjunction? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 429–440. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12274

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, H. I., Kirsch, I., and Yamoto, K. (2011). An experimental study of the effects of monetary incentives on performance on the 12th grade NAEP reading assessment. Teach. Coll. Rec. 113, 2309–2344.

Crump, N., Sepulveda, C., Fajardo, A., and Aguilera, A. (2019). Systematization of performance tests in critical thinking: an interdisciplinary construction experience. Rev. Estud. Educ. 2, 17–47.

Davey, T., Ferrara, S., Shavelson, R., Holland, P., Webb, N., and Wise, L. (2015). Psychometric Considerations for the Next Generation of Performance Assessment. Washington, DC: Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management, Educational Testing Service.

Erwin, T. D., and Sebrell, K. W. (2003). Assessment of critical thinking: ETS’s tasks in critical thinking. J. Gen. Educ. 52, 50–70. doi: 10.1353/jge.2003.0019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haertel, G. D., and Fujii, R. (2017). “Evidence-centered design and postsecondary assessment,” in Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Higher Education , 2nd Edn, eds C. Secolsky and D. B. Denison (Abingdon: Routledge), 313–339. doi: 10.4324/9781315709307-26

Hyytinen, H., and Toom, A. (2019). Developing a performance assessment task in the Finnish higher education context: conceptual and empirical insights. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 551–563. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12283

Hyytinen, H., Toom, A., and Shavelson, R. J. (2019). “Enhancing scientific thinking through the development of critical thinking in higher education,” in Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education: Higher-Order Thinking, Evidence-Based Reasoning and Research Skills , eds M. Murtonen and K. Balloo (London: Palgrave MacMillan).

Indiana University (2019). FSSE 2019 Frequencies: FSSE 2019 Aggregate. Available online at:: http://fsse.indiana.edu/pdf/FSSE_IR_2019/summary_tables/FSSE19_Frequencies_(FSSE_2019).pdf (accessed May 1, 2020).

Jeschke, C., Kuhn, C., Lindmeier, A., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Saas, H., and Heinze, A. (2019). Performance assessment to investigate the domain specificity of instructional skills among pre-service and in-service teachers of mathematics and economics. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 538–550. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12277

Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klein, S., Benjamin, R., Shavelson, R., and Bolus, R. (2007). The collegiate learning assessment: facts and fantasies. Eval. Rev. 31, 415–439. doi: 10.1177/0193841x07303318

Kosslyn, S. M., and Nelson, B. (2017). Building the Intentional University: Minerva and the Future of Higher Education. Cambridge, MAL: The MIT Press.

Lane, S., and Stone, C. A. (2006). “Performance assessment,” in Educational Measurement , 4th Edn, ed. R. L. Brennan (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), 387–432.

Leighton, J. P. (2019). The risk–return trade-off: performance assessments and cognitive validation of inferences. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 441–455. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12271

Leu, D. J., Kiili, C., Forzani, E., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., and O’Byrne, W. I. (2020). “The new literacies of online research and comprehension,” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics , ed. C. A. Chapelle (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 844–852.

Leu, D. J., Kulikowich, J. M., Kennedy, C., and Maykel, C. (2014). “The ORCA Project: designing technology-based assessments for online research,” in Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Annual Meeting , Philadelphia, PA.

Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., and Roohr, K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: current state and directions for next-generation assessments. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 1, 1–23. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.”. Am. Psychol. 28, 1–14. doi: 10.1037/h0034092

McGrew, S., Ortega, T., Breakstone, J., and Wineburg, S. (2017). The challenge that’s bigger than fake news: civic reasoning in a social media environment. Am. Educ. 4, 4-9, 39.

Mejía, A., Mariño, J. P., and Molina, A. (2019). Incorporating perspective analysis into critical thinking performance assessments. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 456–467. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12297

Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educ. Res. 23, 13–23. doi: 10.3102/0013189x023002013

Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., and Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2003, i–29. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01908.x

Mislevy, R. J., and Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 25, 6–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., and Hooper, M. (2017). ePIRLS 2016 International Results in Online Informational Reading. Available online at:: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/ (accessed May 1, 2020).

Nagel, M.-T., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schmidt, S., and Beck, K. (2020). “Performance assessment of generic and domain-specific skills in higher education economics,” in Student Learning in German Higher Education , eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, H. A. Pant, M. Toepper, and C. Lautenbach (Berlin: Springer), 281–299. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-27886-1_14

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2012). AHELO: Feasibility Study Report , Vol. 1. Paris: OECD. Design and implementation.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2013). AHELO: Feasibility Study Report , Vol. 2. Paris: OECD. Data analysis and national experiences.

Oser, F. K., and Biedermann, H. (2020). “A three-level model for critical thinking: critical alertness, critical reflection, and critical analysis,” in Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of Information (PLATO) , ed. O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Cham: Springer), 89–106. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6_7

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2007). Consequential validity: using assessment to drive instruction. Found. Crit. Think. 29, 31–40.

Pellegrino, J. W., and Hilton, M. L. (eds) (2012). Education for life and work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Shavelson, R. (2010). Measuring College Learning Responsibly: Accountability in a New Era. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Shavelson, R. J. (2013). On an approach to testing and modeling competence. Educ. Psychol. 48, 73–86. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.779483

Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Beck, K., Schmidt, S., and Marino, J. P. (2019). Assessment of university students’ critical thinking: next generation performance assessment. Int. J. Test. 19, 337–362. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2018.1543309

Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Marino, J. P. (2018). “International performance assessment of learning in higher education (iPAL): research and development,” in Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Cross-National Comparisons and Perspectives , eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, and C. Kuhn (Berlin: Springer), 193–214. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_10

Shavelson, R. J., Klein, S., and Benjamin, R. (2009). The limitations of portfolios. Inside Higher Educ. Available online at: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/16/limitations-portfolios

Stolzenberg, E. B., Eagan, M. K., Zimmerman, H. B., Berdan Lozano, J., Cesar-Davis, N. M., Aragon, M. C., et al. (2019). Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The HERI Faculty Survey 2016–2017. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.

Tessier-Lavigne, M. (2020). Putting Ethics at the Heart of Innovation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Magazine.

Wheeler, P., and Haertel, G. D. (1993). Resource Handbook on Performance Assessment and Measurement: A Tool for Students, Practitioners, and Policymakers. Palm Coast, FL: Owl Press.

Wineburg, S., McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., and Ortega, T. (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. Executive Summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford History Education Group.

Zahner, D. (2013). Reliability and Validity–CLA+. Council for Aid to Education. Available online at:: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91ae/8edfac44bce3bed37d8c9091da01d6db3776.pdf .

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Shavelson, R. J. (2019). Performance assessment of student learning in higher education [Special issue]. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, i–iv, 413–563.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., Lautenbach, C., Molerov, D., Toepper, M., and Brückner, S. (2017). Modeling and Measuring Competencies in Higher Education: Approaches to Challenges in Higher Education Policy and Practice. Berlin: Springer VS.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., Toepper, M., and Lautenbach, C. (eds) (2020). Student Learning in German Higher Education: Innovative Measurement Approaches and Research Results. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. J., and Pant, H. A. (2018). “Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: international comparisons and perspectives,” in Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Higher Education , 2nd Edn, eds C. Secolsky and D. B. Denison (Abingdon: Routledge), 686–697.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. J., Schmidt, S., and Beck, K. (2019). On the complementarity of holistic and analytic approaches to performance assessment scoring. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 468–484. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12286

Keywords : critical thinking, performance assessment, assessment framework, scoring rubric, evidence-centered design, 21st century skills, higher education

Citation: Braun HI, Shavelson RJ, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O and Borowiec K (2020) Performance Assessment of Critical Thinking: Conceptualization, Design, and Implementation. Front. Educ. 5:156. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00156

Received: 30 May 2020; Accepted: 04 August 2020; Published: 08 September 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Braun, Shavelson, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia and Borowiec. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Henry I. Braun, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Assessing Information Processing and Online Reasoning as a Prerequisite for Learning in Higher Education

Assessment of Critical Thinking

• First Online: 10 December 2023

Cite this chapter

• Dirk Jahn 3 &
• Michael Cursio 4  

87 Accesses

The term “to assess” has various meanings, such as to judge, evaluate, estimate, gauge, or determine. Assessment is therefore a diagnostic inventory of certain characteristics of a section of observable reality on the basis of defined criteria. In a pedagogical context, assessments aim to make learners’ knowledge, skills, or attitudes observable in certain application situations and to assess them on the basis of observation criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

To give an example: Holistic Critical Thinking Rubric from East Georgia College; Available at https://studylib.net/doc/7608742/east-georgia-college-holistic-critical-thinking-rubric-cr… (04/03/2020).

Astleitner, H. (1998). Kritisches Denken. Basisqualifikation für Lehrer und Ausbildner . Studien.

Google Scholar  

Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives . https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/biggs-aligning-teaching-and-assessment.pdf . Accessed 21 Apr 2015.

Brookfield, S. (2003). Critical thinking in adulthood. In D. J. Fasko & D. J. Fasko (Eds.), Critical thinking and reasoning. Current research, theory, and practice (pp. 143–163). Hampton Press.

Ennis, R. H. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning. Current research, theory, and practice (pp. 293–314). Hampton Press.

Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: an analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42 (3), 136–148.

Article   Google Scholar  

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. A framework for research and practice . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Grotjahn, R. (1999). Testtheorie: Grundzüge und Anwendung in der Praxis. Materialien Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 53 , 304–341.

Halpern, D. F. (2003). The “how” and “why” of critical thinking assessment. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory and practice . Hampton Press.

Handke, J., & Schäfer, A. M. (2012). E-learning, E-teaching und E-assessment in der Hochschullehre: Eine Anleitung: Eine Anleitung . Oldenbourg.

Ingenkamp, K. (1985). Lehrbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik . Beltz Verlag.

Jahn, D. (2012a). Kritisches Denken fördern können. Entwicklung eines didaktischen Designs zur Qualifizierung pädagogischer Professionals . Shaker.

Landis, M., Swain, K. D., Friehe, M. J., & Coufal, K. L. (2007). Evaluating critical thinking in class and online: Comparison of the Newman method and the Facione Rubric. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34 (4), 121–136.

Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 2 , 56–77.

Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Cochrane, C. & Webb, B. (1996). An experiment in group learning technology: evaluating critical thinking in face-to-face and computer-supported seminars . Verfügbar unter: http://emoderators.com/ipct-j/1996/n1/newman/contents.html . Accessed 12 Apr.

Pandero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Reinmann-Rothmeier, G., & Mandl, H. (1999). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten (überarbeitete Fassung). Forschungsbericht Nr. 60. Ludwig-Maximilans-Universität München Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie und Empirische Pädagogik.

Rieck, K, unter Mitarbeit von Hoffmann, D., & Friege, G. (2005). Gute Aufgaben. In Modulbeschreibung des Programms SINUS-Transfer Grundschule. https://www.schulportal-thueringen.de/get-data/a79020fe-f99b-4153-8de5-cfff12f92f30/N1.pdf . Accessed 27 Jan 2020.

Sopka, S., Simon, M., & Beckers, S. (2013). “Assessment drives Learning”: Konzepte zur Erfolgs- und Qualitätskontrolle. In M. St. Pierre & G. Breuer (Eds.), Simulation in der Medizin . Springer.

Wilbers, K. (2014). Wirtschaftsunterricht gestalten. Toolbox (2. Aufl.). epubli.

Wilbers, K. (2019). Wirtschaftsunterricht gestalten. epubli GmbH. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2019/17949/pdf/Wilbers_2019_Wi.rtschaftsunterricht_gestalten.pdf . Accessed 24 Okt 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Friedrich Alexander Uni, Fortbildungszentrum Hochschullehre FBZHL, Fürth, Bayern, Germany

Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Fortbildungszentrum Hochschullehre FBZHL, Fürth, Germany

Michael Cursio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Jahn, D., Cursio, M. (2023). Assessment of Critical Thinking. In: Critical Thinking. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41543-3_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41543-3_8

Published : 10 December 2023

Publisher Name : Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-41542-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-41543-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

How can one assess, for purposes of instruction or research, the degree to which a person possesses the dispositions, skills and knowledge of a critical thinker?

In psychometrics, assessment instruments are judged according to their validity and reliability.

Roughly speaking, an instrument is valid if it measures accurately what it purports to measure, given standard conditions. More precisely, the degree of validity is “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research Association 2014: 11). In other words, a test is not valid or invalid in itself. Rather, validity is a property of an interpretation of a given score on a given test for a specified use. Determining the degree of validity of such an interpretation requires collection and integration of the relevant evidence, which may be based on test content, test takers’ response processes, a test’s internal structure, relationship of test scores to other variables, and consequences of the interpretation (American Educational Research Association 2014: 13–21). Criterion-related evidence consists of correlations between scores on the test and performance on another test of the same construct; its weight depends on how well supported is the assumption that the other test can be used as a criterion. Content-related evidence is evidence that the test covers the full range of abilities that it claims to test. Construct-related evidence is evidence that a correct answer reflects good performance of the kind being measured and an incorrect answer reflects poor performance.

An instrument is reliable if it consistently produces the same result, whether across different forms of the same test (parallel-forms reliability), across different items (internal consistency), across different administrations to the same person (test-retest reliability), or across ratings of the same answer by different people (inter-rater reliability). Internal consistency should be expected only if the instrument purports to measure a single undifferentiated construct, and thus should not be expected of a test that measures a suite of critical thinking dispositions or critical thinking abilities, assuming that some people are better in some of the respects measured than in others (for example, very willing to inquire but rather closed-minded). Otherwise, reliability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of validity; a standard example of a reliable instrument that is not valid is a bathroom scale that consistently under-reports a person’s weight.

Assessing dispositions is difficult if one uses a multiple-choice format with known adverse consequences of a low score. It is pretty easy to tell what answer to the question “How open-minded are you?” will get the highest score and to give that answer, even if one knows that the answer is incorrect. If an item probes less directly for a critical thinking disposition, for example by asking how often the test taker pays close attention to views with which the test taker disagrees, the answer may differ from reality because of self-deception or simple lack of awareness of one’s personal thinking style, and its interpretation is problematic, even if factor analysis enables one to identify a distinct factor measured by a group of questions that includes this one (Ennis 1996). Nevertheless, Facione, Sánchez, and Facione (1994) used this approach to develop the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI). They began with 225 statements expressive of a disposition towards or away from critical thinking (using the long list of dispositions in Facione 1990a), validated the statements with talk-aloud and conversational strategies in focus groups to determine whether people in the target population understood the items in the way intended, administered a pilot version of the test with 150 items, and eliminated items that failed to discriminate among test takers or were inversely correlated with overall results or added little refinement to overall scores (Facione 2000). They used item analysis and factor analysis to group the measured dispositions into seven broad constructs: open-mindedness, analyticity, cognitive maturity, truth-seeking, systematicity, inquisitiveness, and self-confidence (Facione, Sánchez, and Facione 1994). The resulting test consists of 75 agree-disagree statements and takes 20 minutes to administer. A repeated disturbing finding is that North American students taking the test tend to score low on the truth-seeking sub-scale (on which a low score results from agreeing to such statements as the following: “To get people to agree with me I would give any reason that worked”. “Everyone always argues from their own self-interest, including me”. “If there are four reasons in favor and one against, I’ll go with the four”.) Development of the CCTDI made it possible to test whether good critical thinking abilities and good critical thinking dispositions go together, in which case it might be enough to teach one without the other. Facione (2000) reports that administration of the CCTDI and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) to almost 8,000 post-secondary students in the United States revealed a statistically significant but weak correlation between total scores on the two tests, and also between paired sub-scores from the two tests. The implication is that both abilities and dispositions need to be taught, that one cannot expect improvement in one to bring with it improvement in the other.

A more direct way of assessing critical thinking dispositions would be to see what people do when put in a situation where the dispositions would reveal themselves. Ennis (1996) reports promising initial work with guided open-ended opportunities to give evidence of dispositions, but no standardized test seems to have emerged from this work. There are however standardized aspect-specific tests of critical thinking dispositions. The Critical Problem Solving Scale (Berman et al. 2001: 518) takes as a measure of the disposition to suspend judgment the number of distinct good aspects attributed to an option judged to be the worst among those generated by the test taker. Stanovich, West and Toplak (2011: 800–810) list tests developed by cognitive psychologists of the following dispositions: resistance to miserly information processing, resistance to myside thinking, absence of irrelevant context effects in decision-making, actively open-minded thinking, valuing reason and truth, tendency to seek information, objective reasoning style, tendency to seek consistency, sense of self-efficacy, prudent discounting of the future, self-control skills, and emotional regulation.

It is easier to measure critical thinking skills or abilities than to measure dispositions. The following eight currently available standardized tests purport to measure them: the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X and Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis & Weir 1985), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Halpern 2016), the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning 2017), the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017), the HEIghten Critical Thinking Assessment (https://territorium.com/heighten/), and a suite of critical thinking assessments for different groups and purposes offered by Insight Assessment (https://www.insightassessment.com/products). The Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) is unique among them in being designed for use by college faculty to help them improve their development of students’ critical thinking skills (Haynes et al. 2015; Haynes & Stein 2021). Also, for some years the United Kingdom body OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations) awarded AS and A Level certificates in critical thinking on the basis of an examination (OCR 2011). Many of these standardized tests have received scholarly evaluations at the hands of, among others, Ennis (1958), McPeck (1981), Norris and Ennis (1989), Fisher and Scriven (1997), Possin (2008, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014, 2020) and Hatcher and Possin (2021). Their evaluations provide a useful set of criteria that such tests ideally should meet, as does the description by Ennis (1984) of problems in testing for competence in critical thinking: the soundness of multiple-choice items, the clarity and soundness of instructions to test takers, the information and mental processing used in selecting an answer to a multiple-choice item, the role of background beliefs and ideological commitments in selecting an answer to a multiple-choice item, the tenability of a test’s underlying conception of critical thinking and its component abilities, the set of abilities that the test manual claims are covered by the test, the extent to which the test actually covers these abilities, the appropriateness of the weighting given to various abilities in the scoring system, the accuracy and intellectual honesty of the test manual, the interest of the test to the target population of test takers, the scope for guessing, the scope for choosing a keyed answer by being test-wise, precautions against cheating in the administration of the test, clarity and soundness of materials for training essay graders, inter-rater reliability in grading essays, and clarity and soundness of advance guidance to test takers on what is required in an essay. Rear (2019) has challenged the use of standardized tests of critical thinking as a way to measure educational outcomes, on the grounds that  they (1) fail to take into account disputes about conceptions of critical thinking, (2) are not completely valid or reliable, and (3) fail to evaluate skills used in real academic tasks. He proposes instead assessments based on discipline-specific content.

There are also aspect-specific standardized tests of critical thinking abilities. Stanovich, West and Toplak (2011: 800–810) list tests of probabilistic reasoning, insights into qualitative decision theory, knowledge of scientific reasoning, knowledge of rules of logical consistency and validity, and economic thinking. They also list instruments that probe for irrational thinking, such as superstitious thinking, belief in the superiority of intuition, over-reliance on folk wisdom and folk psychology, belief in “special” expertise, financial misconceptions, overestimation of one’s introspective powers, dysfunctional beliefs, and a notion of self that encourages egocentric processing. They regard these tests along with the previously mentioned tests of critical thinking dispositions as the building blocks for a comprehensive test of rationality, whose development (they write) may be logistically difficult and would require millions of dollars.

A superb example of assessment of an aspect of critical thinking ability is the Test on Appraising Observations (Norris & King 1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b), which was designed for classroom administration to senior high school students. The test focuses entirely on the ability to appraise observation statements and in particular on the ability to determine in a specified context which of two statements there is more reason to believe. According to the test manual (Norris & King 1985, 1990b), a person’s score on the multiple-choice version of the test, which is the number of items that are answered correctly, can justifiably be given either a criterion-referenced or a norm-referenced interpretation.

On a criterion-referenced interpretation, those who do well on the test have a firm grasp of the principles for appraising observation statements, and those who do poorly have a weak grasp of them. This interpretation can be justified by the content of the test and the way it was developed, which incorporated a method of controlling for background beliefs articulated and defended by Norris (1985). Norris and King synthesized from judicial practice, psychological research and common-sense psychology 31 principles for appraising observation statements, in the form of empirical generalizations about tendencies, such as the principle that observation statements tend to be more believable than inferences based on them (Norris & King 1984). They constructed items in which exactly one of the 31 principles determined which of two statements was more believable. Using a carefully constructed protocol, they interviewed about 100 students who responded to these items in order to determine the thinking that led them to choose the answers they did (Norris & King 1984). In several iterations of the test, they adjusted items so that selection of the correct answer generally reflected good thinking and selection of an incorrect answer reflected poor thinking. Thus they have good evidence that good performance on the test is due to good thinking about observation statements and that poor performance is due to poor thinking about observation statements. Collectively, the 50 items on the final version of the test require application of 29 of the 31 principles for appraising observation statements, with 13 principles tested by one item, 12 by two items, three by three items, and one by four items. Thus there is comprehensive coverage of the principles for appraising observation statements. Fisher and Scriven (1997: 135–136) judge the items to be well worked and sound, with one exception. The test is clearly written at a grade 6 reading level, meaning that poor performance cannot be attributed to difficulties in reading comprehension by the intended adolescent test takers. The stories that frame the items are realistic, and are engaging enough to stimulate test takers’ interest. Thus the most plausible explanation of a given score on the test is that it reflects roughly the degree to which the test taker can apply principles for appraising observations in real situations. In other words, there is good justification of the proposed interpretation that those who do well on the test have a firm grasp of the principles for appraising observation statements and those who do poorly have a weak grasp of them.

To get norms for performance on the test, Norris and King arranged for seven groups of high school students in different types of communities and with different levels of academic ability to take the test. The test manual includes percentiles, means, and standard deviations for each of these seven groups. These norms allow teachers to compare the performance of their class on the test to that of a similar group of students.

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• New! Member Benefit New! Member Benefit
• Featured Analytics Hub
• Resources Resources
• Member Directory
• Networking Communities
• Advertise, Exhibit, Sponsor
• Find or Post Jobs

• Learn and Engage Learn and Engage
• Bridge Program

• Compare AACSB-Accredited Schools
• Explore Programs

• Advocacy Advocacy
• Featured AACSB Announces 2024 Class of Influential Leaders
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging
• Influential Leaders
• Innovations That Inspire
• Connect With Us Connect With Us
• Accredited School Search
• Accreditation
• Learning and Events
• Advertise, Sponsor, Exhibit
• Tips and Advice
• Is Business School Right for Me?

Assessing Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

Sponsored Content

• Technology is poised to revolutionize education. Instead of being disrupted by the new tech, schools should participate in its development.
• Technology can be particularly useful in helping schools assess critical thinking skills, which have become even more important in a world that increasingly relies on artificial intelligence.
• Peregrine Global Services has worked with institutions of higher learning to launch a new Critical Thinking Assessment tool to help schools measure both retained knowledge and acquired competencies.

  Technology has traditionally disrupted education, and higher education institutions have struggled to keep pace with these changes. However, when institutions of higher education partner with the technology sector, they can become sources of disruption themselves.

One of the most notable examples of how technology disrupted the educational field is the calculator. As Sarah Banks outlines in a 2011 master’s thesis that analyzes historical attitudes about the use of calculators in junior high and high school math classrooms, the invention met with mixed responses from educators.

Some educators viewed calculators as helpful tools that could speed up calculations and save time, allowing students to focus on more complex mathematical concepts. Others expressed concern that calculators would become crutches for students, hindering their ability to develop basic arithmetic skills. Eventually, of course, calculators became indispensable tools in the classroom and beyond.

More recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful new technology that has the potential to revolutionize education. However, educators such as Andre Perry and Nicol Turner Lee have expressed concerns about the possible negative impacts of AI. Among other things, they note that its algorithms can perpetuate bias and discrimination. Industry observers such as Lyss Welding point out that AI poses a risk to academic integrity because it allows students to plagiarize and cheat on homework in ways that are easier, faster, and harder to detect.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful new technology that has the potential to revolutionize education.

Despite these concerns, AI technology has become an integral part of modern education as more educators are actively adapting and leveraging it to benefit their learners. But teachers should not introduce technology into their classrooms unless they are also helping students develop their skills in higher-order thinking. While technology provides tools to assist with calculations, information access, and other tasks, critical thinking enables students to make sense of that information and use it effectively.

The Importance of Assessment

However, while critical thinking is widely recognized as an essential skill, it can be challenging for higher education institutions to quantify or measure how well students have learned it. Assessment is a vital and dynamic component of teaching knowledge, skills, and competencies. It informs program and institutional improvement, providing invaluable information that administrators, faculty, and staff can use to make data-driven decisions that lead to better student outcomes.

One of the key difficulties in assessing critical thinking is defining what it is and how it should be measured. Critical thinking is a complex skill that involves the ability to analyze and evaluate information, think creatively, and make reasoned judgments, as Richard Paul and Linda Elder outline in their 2019 publication . It is not a single skill that can be easily quantified or measured through traditional assessments. As a result, educators have had to develop more nuanced approaches to evaluating critical thinking skills, such as project-based assessments and open-ended questions that require students to demonstrate their reasoning and problem-solving abilities.

While critical thinking is widely recognized as an essential skill, it can be challenging for higher education institutions to quantify or measure how well students have learned it.

Another challenge in measuring critical thinking is ensuring that assessments are fair and unbiased. Assessments that are overly reliant on multiple-choice questions or rote memorization can unfairly disadvantage students who may excel in other areas of critical thinking.

For these reasons, educators need effective assessment methods that accurately measure critical thinking skills in a variety of contexts. These assessments should use consistent and objective criteria to ensure that all students are given equal opportunities to demonstrate their abilities.

However, building such assessment tools and overcoming the barriers associated with measuring critical thinking places a large and sometimes overwhelming administrative burden on faculty and staff. Unfortunately, there can be a negative impact on student performance when faculty members must allocate more time and resources to handling administrative tasks than to teaching courses and supporting learner success.

A Partnership Between Industry and Academia

The need for critical thinking assessment tools is being addressed through a recent partnership between various higher education institutions and Peregrine Global Services, an education technology company specializing in assessment and instructional solutions. Peregrine recently launched its Critical Thinking Assessment to help colleges and universities evaluate this important skill.

To ensure that the assessment tool would meet the specific needs of the higher education community, the company developed its Peregrine Partner Program, which involved beta testing the tool with programs of varying sizes and types during the fall of 2022 and the spring of 2023. Each educational partner provided valuable feedback on how to present data to help schools make informed decisions, how to remove administrative burdens associated with assessment, and how to foster a culture of quality.

The partnership between Peregrine and the higher education institutions has led to several unforeseen advancements in technology. These include the ability to analyze exam data by course, cohort, or program, as well as the implementation of blind scoring to remove scoring bias. The new tool also adopts an innovative approach to assessing critical thinking and generating the data necessary to analyze exam results. For example, schools will be able to sort and filter data by levels of higher-order thinking.

The Critical Thinking Assessment uses a standardized rubric covering six critical thinking subcriteria and provides institutions with the flexibility to customize the exams to meet their needs. Academic programs can tailor the service to cover specific disciplines and assess varying levels of higher-order thinking. Learners receive scenarios randomly, ensuring a unique testing experience for each student.

The system auto-scores multiple-choice questions, while designated program faculty and assessment administrators use a rubric to manually score open-ended items. The short case studies and scenario questions are written and validated by subject matter experts with practical and teaching experience in each specific discipline.

“The Critical Thinking Assessment helps make assessment a facultywide effort, where everyone has buy-in,” says Melodie Philhours, associate professor of marketing and director of assessment at Arkansas State University’s Neil Griffin College of Business in Jonesboro. “The assessment tool significantly reduces the time and resources required for assessment, allowing faculty to focus on teaching and improving student learning outcomes. One of the most significant benefits has been the removal of the administrative burden related to compiling and entering the data, as the results are readily available after the assessment is fully scored.”

At the Forefront of Disruption

The collaboration between Peregrine and its partner schools will benefit not only the institutions involved, but also the broader field of education. Any time higher education and the technology sector can work together, they will drive innovation and disruption, ultimately leading to better learner outcomes. With the Critical Thinking Assessment tool, Peregrine aims to help higher education institutions assess not just retained knowledge, but also acquired skills and competencies.

In the future, Peregrine plans to incorporate AI into the assessment and build an aggregate pool, so schools can compare their results over periods of time, internally and externally, allowing them to benchmark against schools with similar demographics. Until then, Peregrine is offering the tool to schools as a course-level assessment they can use in their overall assessment portfolio. 

The partnership between Peregrine and universities highlights the potential for industry and academia to come together to address the challenges faced by higher education. It demonstrates that when universities are at the forefront of disrupting education in a positive manner, they can move along with technology rather than lag behind it.

• critical thinking
• partnerships