Development of the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale

A measure of a persons’ motivation towards engaging and evaluating information.

Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

Key points

• Critical thinking can be defined in terms of motivational dispositions.
• Dispositions include a willingness to be reflective when gathering evidence and evaluating information.
• A reliable, 22-item, 5-factor scale measuring critical thinking dispositions was developed.

The critical thinking literature (e.g., Bensley, 2023) suggests assessment of critical thinking would ideally include aspects of motivational dispositions. Identified dispositions are open-mindedness, intellectual engagement, and a proclivity to evaluating carefully information and the views and beliefs of both oneself and others. Another way to think about this disposition is how willing people are to persist in the pursuit of information to deepen their understanding of phenomena, issues, and problems. Are they willing to change what they believe when new evidence indicates it is warranted? Thus, critical thinking dispositions reflect persons’ stance towards new information, their attitudes about diverging ideas, their willingness to engage in nuanced and complex thinking, and their perseverance in genuine attempts to understand and resolve complex problems (Killian, 2024).

People who score high on critical thinking often report a "need for cognition", which is the enjoyment associated with thinking about things, thinking about thinking, and engaging in regular intellectual activity leading to a theory of mind. In contrast, anti-intellectualism—a strong disliking of persons committed to intellectual activity and engagement for its own sake—is negatively associated with critical thinking. In addition, a need for closure is a cognitive style in which people tend to make quick decisions, prefer predictable situations, and don’t like it when a movie or a piece of art can be interpreted in different ways, and this is also negatively associated with critical thinking (Killian, 2024).

Those who score low on critical thinking and its dispositions tend to frame the world and people in it in absolutist, dogmatic terms. Their model of the world deals in dichotomies and rigid categories and is too simple to capture complexities such as the pluralistic societies we live in (Bensley, 2023; Cheung et al., 2002; Halpern & Dunn, 2021). This is why folks who score low on critical thinking tend to demonstrate biases, including gender and racial bias. How do we measure critical thinking dispositions?

I created a pool of 64 critical thinking disposition items tapping the following dimensions: intellectual curiosity vs. anti-intellectualism, perspective-taking capacity, need for cognition, need for closure or intolerance for ambiguity, and a disengaged stance towards new information, the gathering of evidence, and challenging, complex problems, and ideological components (dogmatism, reductionism, and binary “either/or” thinking) (Killian, 2024). Fifty-one of these items performed adequately (with means and standard deviations that were normal-like), qualifying for their inclusion in an electronic survey administered to a US sample (N=365) (Killian, 2024).

A 7-point Likert-type response format was utilized (0 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Sample items included “I am known to revise my beliefs and views when honest reflection suggests a change is warranted”, “It doesn’t matter much whether people read and stay informed” (reverse-scored), “I pursue a line of questioning even if the answers are not likely to support my original opinions or self-interest”, “I don’t like movies where the ending can be interpreted in different ways” (reverse-scored), and “I become impatient when attempting a complex or complicated task” (reverse-scored) (Killian, 2024).

A principal components analysis in SPSS found that the the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (CTDS) had 5 factors or dimensions. The first comprised four positively worded items that reflected commitment to reflection and perspective-taking. The second comprised six negatively worded items tapping a disengagement from new information, evidence, and abstract thinking. The third comprised five negatively worded items tapping a proclivity for rigid, dichotomous, and reductionistic thinking. The fourth comprised four negatively worded items reflecting an intolerance for ambiguity and a need for quick closure. The fifth comprised three negatively worded items tapping a lack of initiative when challenged with complexity. The 22-item total scale had an internal consistency of .88, and scores had a normal, bell-shaped distribution (Killian, 2024).

Regarding construct validity, the correlations between the CTDS and need for cognition, openness to experience, and IQ were significant and positive, and there were significant and negative correlation between the CTDS and dogmatism, anti-intellectualism, and need for closure. Specifically, the CTDS correlated positively with Cognitive Experience Seeking (r = 0.674, p < 0.001) and openness (r = 0.664, p < 0.001), as well as negatively with a need for closure (r = −0.309, p < 0.001), reflecting, respectively, a motivation for cognitive engagement/stimulation, a willingness to maintain an open mind and remain engaged even in the face of ambiguous, contradictory, or complex stimuli. Regarding discriminant validity, the CTDS did not correlate significantly with income, education, social desirability, or liberal or conservative political views, and the mean differences between male and female participants, and across racial groups, were also nonsignificant (Killian, 2024).

In sum, the CTDS is a brief, reliable, and valid instrument not subject to socially desirable responding (i.e., tendency of respondents to answer questions in a way that might be viewed favorably by others) and can be administered in approximately six minutes. A one-page measure of adults’ inclination toward curiosity, a commitment to intellectual engagement, and willingness to evaluate and change one’s own beliefs and perspectives in the face of new information could prove valuable in explaining many social attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Specific evidence supporting its explanatory power will be presented in another posting.