The Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS)

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS; Sosu, 2013). Participants were 212 university students. The results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the 11 items loaded on two factors (critical openness and reflective scepticism) and the two-dimensional model was well fit (x²=53.24, df= 40, RMSEA=.040, NFI=.90, NNFI=.96, GFI=.96, AGFI=.93, CFI=.97, IFI=.97, and SRMR=.046). The internal consistency coefficients were .68 for critical openness subscale, .75 for reflective scepticism subscale, and .78 for the overall scale. The corrected item-total correlations of CTDS ranged from .25 to .57. Overall findings demonstrated that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring individuals’ disposition to critical thinking.

Keywords

• Critical thinking, validity, reliability, confirmatory factor analysis

The Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS)

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeğini (Sosu, 2013) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 212 üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde iki boyutlu modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (x²=53.24, df= 40, RMSEA=.040, NFI=.90, NNFI=.96, GFI=.96, AGFI=.93, CFI=.97, IFI=.97, and SRMR=.046) .Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayıları ölçeğin bütünü için .78, yansıtıcı şüphecilik alt ölçeği için. 75, eleştirel açıklık alt ölçeği için. 68 olarak bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin madde toplam puan korelasyon katsayılarının. 25 ile .57 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Bu sonuçlar, Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir

Keywords

• Eleştirel düşünme, geçerlik, güvenirlik, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

References

1. study in various rural areas of Turkey may represent whether these results could be generalized to a wider
2. population. Another limitation of the current study is that the sample was composed of university students,
3. which restricted the generalizability of the findings. Hence, it could be important to investigate the relationship
4. of these variables in other sample groups. Overall findings demonstrated that this scale had high validity and
5. reliability scores and that it may be used as a valid and reliable instrument in order to measure the individuals’
6. disposition to critical thinking. Nevertheless, further studies that will use CTDS are important for its
7. measurement effectiveness.
8. Arslan, S. (2012).The influence of environment education on critical thinking and environmental attitude. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 902-909.

9. Bentler, P. M., & Bonet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi yayınları.
11. Chaffee, J. (1992). Critical thinking skills: The cornerstone of developmental education. Journal of Developmental Educational, 15, 2-39.
12. Chaffee, J. (1994). Thinking critically. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
13. Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
15. Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). California critical thinking disposition inventory. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
16. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.
17. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
18. Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
19. McPeck, J. E (1983). Critical thinking and education. Teachers College Record, 85(1), 154-157.
20. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H., (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
21. Sosu, E. M. (2013). The development and psychometric validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 107-119.
22. Walsh, C. M., Seldomridge, L. A., & Badros, K. K. (2007). California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: Further factor analytic examination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 141–151