Volume 4, Issue 1-1, January 2015, Page: 1-8
Examination of the Factor Structure of Critical Thinking Disposition Scale According to Different Variables
Ebru Demircioğlu, Dept. of Assessment and Evaluation in Education, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi, Çankırı, Turkey
Sevilay Kilmen, Dept. of Assessment and Evaluation in Education, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu, Turkey
Received: May 30, 2014;       Accepted: Aug. 22, 2014;       Published: Aug. 24, 2014
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajtas.s.2015040101.11      View  5157      Downloads  188
Abstract
The information and technology age has brought rapid changes and transformations in the education system, and focused on raising qualified individuals who can choose, organize and use information; think on a critical and creative basis in the process; conduct research; solve problems; calculate possibilities and make deductions. Critical thinking, one of the most important characteristics one should possess, is a complicated and comprehensive process in which high-level skills are used. The development of critical thinking skills is a primary target of elementary curricula, which were reconstructed within the scope of the 2004 education reform. Such programs have introduced fundamental changes in educational activities upon the adoption of the constructivist education approach rather than the traditional approach. The present study aims to examine the factor structure of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (EMI) according to the genders and socio-economic statuses (SES) of different groups; and to determine whether the structure applies to different groups. A survey method is used in the research. The study population comprises a total of 39049 first-grade high school students from Ankara. The districts are categorized according to the low, medium and upper-SESs of the populations, and the research sample comprises 1264 first-grade high school students chosen via random and stratified sampling methods. Data was analyzed and reported in accordance with the quantitative analysis technique. In order to determine the three-factor structure of the scale according to the genders and socio-economic statuses of the groups, Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) was conducted. Model A was determined to be the basis, and three alternative models are constructed. Model D, in which error variances were released, was found to have better fit values. MGCFA was conducted in the groups categorized according to low, medium and upper SES. Model A, the basic model; as a result of the paired comparisons of the models, Model E-in which factor correlation and error variances were released-was determined to have better fit indices than the others. As a result of the research, the confirmatory model is determined not to be different in terms of the factor loads and inter-factors correlation in the groups categorized according to gender, but to differ in terms of error variances. In the groups categorized according to SES, the confirmatory model does not differ in terms of factor loads, but differs in terms of error variances and factor correlations.
Keywords
Critical Thinking, Critical Thinking Disposition, Structure Validity, Multi Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To cite this article
Ebru Demircioğlu, Sevilay Kilmen, Examination of the Factor Structure of Critical Thinking Disposition Scale According to Different Variables, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. Special Issue:Computational Statistics. Vol. 4, No. 1-1, 2015, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.s.2015040101.11
Reference
[1]
American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for puposes of educational assessment and instruction, In the Delphi Report: Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for he Committee on Pre-college Philosophy.
[2]
American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
[3]
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2002). Graduate skills assessment. Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
[4]
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (1. Edition). NY, Guilford Publications, Inc.
[5]
Ennis, R. H. (2003). Critical thinking assessment. D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning (pp. 293–310), Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
[6]
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert concensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Delphi Report Executive Summary, 315-423.
[7]
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4. Edition). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[8]
Higher Education Quality Council, Quality Enhancement Group. (1996). What are graduates? Clarifying the attributes of graduateness. London: HEQC.
[9]
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55.
[10]
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2. Edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
[11]
Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik durumlarında karar verme ve problem çözme, [Decision making and problem solving under uncertainty], Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
[12]
Norris, S. P. (2003). The meaning of critical thinking test performance: The effects of abilities and dispositions on scores. D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning: Current research, theory and practice (pp. 315-329). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
[13]
Paul, R., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for instruction in critical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. Sacramento, CA: Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
[14]
Ricketts, J. C., & Rudd, R. D. (2005). Critical thinking of selected youth leaders: The efficacy of critical thinking dispositions, leadership and academic performance. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(1), 33-44.
[15]
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essential of behavioral research (3. Edition). NY: Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.
[16]
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar, [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
[17]
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications (1st Edition). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Browse journals by subject