Factor Analysis of Achievement, Scholastic Aptitude, and Critical Thinking Subtests

Follman, John; Miller, William A.; Hernández, David Asael Gutiérrez

doi:10.1080/00220973.1969.11011165

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were obtained by Comrey (1974, Personal communication); Landis (1976); and Follman et al (1969) who found that the WGCTA subtests were represented by high loadings on a single factor when analyzed along with various achievement and ability tests. This finding provides support for the notion that the WGCTA is measuring a unidimensional aspect of ability, and provides additional evidence for the test's internal consistency.…”

Section: Construct Validitysupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validating the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

Hassan

Madhum

2006

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study validated the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) on a sample of 273 private university students in Lebanon. For that purpose, evidence for construct validation was investigated through identifying the test's factor structure and subscale total correlations, in addition to differences in scores by gender, different levels, and streams using a series of ANOVA tests. Evidence for the test's reliability and concurrent validity was also collected. Moreover, students in five courses that emphasize critical thinking were pre-post tested using the WGCTA. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a unidimensional factor while results showed no significant differences in scores on the WGCTA between males and females or between students at different levels except for graduate students in the Business stream. Furthermore, results revealed significant differences for the senior students between different streams. Finally, results showed no statistically significant changes in the mean scores of students who were pre-and post-tested except for nursing students. The test's significant correlations with various criterion measures provided evidence of its convergent and divergent validities. The results were discussed in terms of the nature of the construct itself, and the effects of training and effective instructional strategies on growth of critical thinking. Recommendations for future research were proposed.

show abstract

Section: Construct Validitysupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Research on WGCTA confirms the unidmensionality of the ability (Follman et al 1969;A. Comrey 1974, Personal communication;Landis 1976) however the construct's factor structure needs to be determined with the University students, as a different factor structure might be identified.…”

Section: Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 80%

Validating the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

Hassan

Madhum

2006

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst caution is needed, given the comparatively small size of some of these statistical relationships, the findings suggest interesting parallels with research into individual differences and performance in other work‐roles. For example, whilst factor analytic studies have shown CTA to be a discrete and partly trainable ability (Follman, Miller, & Hernandez, 1969; Furnham, 2006), there is also evidence of a strong relationship with general mental ability (e.g. Watson & Glaser, 1991).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK General Election

Silvester

Dykes

2007

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CTA, which has been nationally normed and validated, has frequently been used as a measure of critical thinking achievement in instructional situations at the secondary or college level and in industrial and executive programs [4,13,18,8]. It has also had extensive usage as a research tool to determine the relationship between critical thinking abilities and other abilities or traits [16,14].…”

Section: Source Of Data and The Test Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%