level of critical thinking disposition

Development of the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale

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

Posted September 27, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer Ph.D.

• 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.

Bensley, D.A. ( 2023.) Critical thinking, intelligence, and unsubstantiated beliefs: An integrative review. Journal of Intelligence, 1, 207 . https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207

Cheung, C.-K, Rudowicz. E., Kwan, A., & Yue, X. (2002). Assessing university students’ students’ general and specific critical thinking. College Student Journal, 36 , 504 – 25.

Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D.S. (2021). Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solvingreal-world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9 , 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022

Killian, K. D. (2024). Whither feminist solidarity? Critical thinking, racism, islamophobia, gender, authoritarianism, and sexism in a U.S. national sample. Social Sciences, 13 , 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13100502

Kyle D. Killian, Ph.D., LMFT is the author of Interracial Couples, Intimacy and Therapy: Crossing Racial Borders.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Advertisement

What predicts students’ critical thinking disposition? A comparison of the roles of classroom and family environments

• Original Paper
• Published: 07 August 2021
• Volume 25 , pages 565–580, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Zhi Hong Wan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8163-5862 1  

1028 Accesses

9 Citations

Explore all metrics

In learning environments research, limited attention has been paid to the effects of the family environment on student thinking. This study constructed a five-dimension survey of the family environment, based on previous studies of the classroom learning environment, and used it to compare the effects of the family environment and the classroom learning environment associated with an interdisciplinary course (i.e., Liberal Studies) on the critical thinking disposition of 2189 secondary students in Hong Kong. Stepwise regression revealed that: the overall effects of the classroom learning environment of Liberal Studies on critical thinking disposition were greater than those of the family environment; the content-oriented dimensions of both environments were stronger predictors of critical thinking disposition than the relationship-oriented dimensions of both environments; and the effect of the dimension of challenging task on critical thinking disposition was stronger than that of other pedagogy-oriented dimensions. Also the means of all dimensions of the family environment were significantly lower than those of the corresponding dimensions of the classroom learning environment. It is suggested that more effort should be made to enhance both classroom learning environment and family environment to generate convergent forces to efficiently cultivate students’ critical thinking.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The effect of implementing a critical thinking intervention program on English language learners’ critical thinking, reading comprehension, and classroom climate

The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers' critical thinking disposition: the mediating role of self-efficacy

Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment

Explore related subjects.

• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., Dollarhide, E., Miskell, R., & Ware, J. (2015). Self-regulatory climate: A social resource for student regulation and achievement. Teachers College Record, 117 (2), 1–28.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3 (2), 101–134.

Australian Department of Education and Training. (2006). Investigating contemporary pedagogical knowledge in thinking, ICT and Science in Victoria: Intertwining knowledge and practice. Melbourne, Victoria: Department of Education and Training.

Bailin, S., & Seigel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P. Standish, (Eds), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181–193). Maldern, MA.: Blackwells.

Brink-Budgen, R. V. D. (1999). Critical thinking for students: How to assess arguments and effectively present your own . How to Books Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101 (4), 568–586.

Butler, H. A., Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., Franco, A., Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., & Almeida, L. S. (2012). The Halpern critical thinking assessment and real-world outcomes: Cross-national applications. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (2), 112–121.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65 (4), 1111–1119.

Cheng, M.M.H., & Wan, Z.H. (2017). Exploring the effects of classroom learning environment on critical thinking skills and disposition: A study of Hong Kong 12th graders in liberal studies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24 , 152–163.

Curriculum Development Council & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2007). Hong Kong Liberal Studies Curriculum and Assessment Guide. https://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkdse/hkdse_subj.html?A1&1&3_2&A1&1&3_2

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18 (3), 4–10.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction . The California Academic Press.

Fan, J., & Zhang, L. F. (2014). The role of perceived parenting styles in thinking styles. Learning and Individual Differences, 32 , 204–211.

Fasko, D. (2003). Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory, and practice . Hampton Press Inc.

Fink, A. (2015). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide . Sage Publications.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of the my class inventory. Science Education, 65 (2), 145–156.

Forawi, S. A. (2016). Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 20 , 52–62.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1 , 7–33.

Gable, R. K. (1986). Instrument development in the affective domain . Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gallagher, S. A. (1998). The road to critical thinking: The Perry scheme and meaningful differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (595), 12–20.

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

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449–455.

Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2001). Learning to learn–The way forward in curriculum Development . https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/cs-curriculum-doc-report/wf-in-cur/index.html

Jones, P. C., Merritt, J. Q., & Palmer, C. (1999). Critical thinking and interdisciplinarity in environmental higher education: The case for epistemological and values awareness. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23 (3), 349–357.

Ku, K. Y., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019). What predicts adolescents’ critical thinking about real-life news? The roles of social media news consumption and news media literacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33 , 100570.

Kwan, Y. W., & Wong, A. F. (2014). The constructivist classroom learning environment and its associations with critical thinking ability of secondary school students in Liberal Studies. Learning Environments Research, 17 (2), 191–297.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62 (5), 1049.

Lee, J. C. K., Wan, Z. H., Hui, S. K. F., & Ko, P. Y. (2019). More student trust, more self-regulation strategy? Exploring the effects of self-regulatory climate on self-regulated learning.  The Journal of Educational Research, 112 (4), 463–472.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking: What can it be? Educational Leadership, 45 , 38–43.

Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14 (1), 59–73.

Mayer, R. E., & Goodchild, F. M. (1990). The critical thinker: Thinking and learning strategies for psychology students . Wm.C. Brown.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (3), 359–377.

Partin, M. L., & Haney, J. J. (2012). The CLEM model: Path analysis of the mediating effects of attitudes and motivational beliefs on the relationship between perceived learning environment and course performance in an undergraduate non-major biology course. Learning Environments Research, 15 (1), 103–123.

Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world . Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801–813.

Prawat, R. S. (1991). The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the development of thinking. Educational Researcher, 20 (2), 3–30.

Siegel, H. (1991). The generalizability of critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23 (1), 18–30.

Singaporean Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (1998). The thinking programme: The explicit teaching of thinking: Teachers’ manual. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 125–146.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 83–110.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Overtime changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65 (3), 754–770.

Stupnisky, R. H., Renaud, R. D., Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., & Perry, R. P. (2008). The interrelation of first-year college students’ critical thinking disposition, perceived academic control, and academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, 49 (6), 513–530.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory . Springer.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27 , 293–302.

Vartuli, S., & Winter, M. (1989). Parents as first teachers. In M. J. Fine (Ed.), The second handbook on parent education: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 99–117). Academic Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wan, Z. H., & Cheng, M. H. M. (2018). Classroom learning environment, critical thinking, and achievement in an interdisciplinary subject: A study of Hong Kong secondary school graduates. Educational Studies, 45 (3), 285–304.

Wan, Z. H., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Views from the chalkface: Values of teaching Nature of Science in Hong Kong. Science & Education, 25 , 1089–1114.

Zarbakhsh, M., Hassanzadeh, S., Abolghasemi, S., & Dinani, P. T. (2012). Relationship between perceived parenting styles and critical thinking with cognitive learning styles. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2 (10), 10007–10011.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Curriculum & Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Zhi Hong Wan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhi Hong Wan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wan, Z.H. What predicts students’ critical thinking disposition? A comparison of the roles of classroom and family environments. Learning Environ Res 25 , 565–580 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09381-y

Download citation

Received : 12 March 2020

Accepted : 01 August 2021

Published : 07 August 2021

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09381-y

Share this article

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

• Chinese learner
• Classroom learning environment
• Critical thinking disposition
• Family environment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research