Validating crtical thinking
Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, P. Box 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Received 26 June 2013; Revised 11 September 2013; Accepted 16 September 2013Academic Editor: Lieven Verschaffel Copyright © 2013 An Verburgh et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Such instructional interventions are mostly conducted within one discipline, and hence, instruments need to be reliable within a restricted population.
In the following, the concept of CT is described first; afterwards, current tests on CT are discussed.
Results show a higher content validity and preference by students for the HCTA.
The CCTT, however, takes less time to administer and score, which makes it easier to use the CCTT on a larger scale.
Research show that students grow in their CT abilities during college [5–8], but growth is slow and limited [4, 9–11].
For the generalist movement, with Ennis  as leading figure, CT is a set of cognitive abilities that can be taught independently of a specific content.
The development of critical thinking (CT) is generally acknowledged as an important aim of higher education [1–4].
Higher education graduates should be able to make decisions based on a well-thought consideration of available information.
The findings overall suggest that the CTEM test can be used to measure the acquisition of domain-specific CT skills in E&M, and a good basis for future empirical research that focuses on the integration of CT skills within specific subject matter instruction.
A broader CT assessment framework is proposed and possible research questions that can be addressed through the CTEM test are discussed.This possibly hampers the reliability of assessing effects of instructional interventions within educational programmes, where diversity is less.