Can Critical Thinking Be Measured?

Functionally characterizing something alludes to characterizing the particulars of the cycle or measure expected to decide the nature and properties of a peculiarity. Just, it is characterizing the idea concerning how it tends to be done, surveyed, or estimated. Assuming that how you measure something doesn't coordinate, or evaluate the boundaries set out in the manner by which you characterize it, then, at that point, you have not been fruitful in functionally characterizing it.

However, most hypothetical meanings of CT are comparable, how they fluctuate frequently hinders the development of a coordinated hypothetical record of how best to quantify CT abilities. Therefore, analysts and instructors should consider the wide cluster of CT estimates accessible, to distinguish the best and the most proper measures, in light of the CT conceptualization utilized for preparing. There are different surviving CT measures - the most famous among them incorporate the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Assessment (WGCTA; Watson and Glaser, 1980), the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT; Ennis, Millman and Tomko, 1985), the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST; Facione, 1990a), the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (EWCTET; Ennis and Weir, 1985) and the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Halpern, 2010) It has been noted by certain analysts that these various proportions of CT capacity may not be straightforwardly similar (Abrami et al., 2008). For instance, the WGCTA comprises 80 MCQs that action the capacity to draw derivations; perceive suspicions; assess contentions; and utilize sensible translation and rational thinking (Watson and Glaser, 1980). The CCTT comprises 52 MCQs which measure abilities of decisive speculation related to acceptance; allowance; perception and believability; definition and suspicion distinguishing proof; and importance and errors. At last, the CCTST comprises 34 numerous decision questions (MCQs) and measures CT as per the center abilities of investigation, assessment, and surmising, as well as inductive and logical thinking.

As tended to over, the MCQ-organization of these three appraisals is not so great - dangerous even, because it permits test-takers to just think about when they don't have the foggiest idea about the right response, rather than exhibiting their capacity to fundamentally break down and assess issues and induce answers for those issues (Ku, 2009). Besides, as contended by Halpern (2003), the MCQ design makes the evaluation a trial of verbal and quantitative information rather than CT (for example since one chooses from a rundown of potential responses rather than deciding one's models for fostering a response). The estimation of CT through MCQs is likewise risky given the expected incongruence between the conceptualization of CT that shapes test development and its evaluation utilizing MCQs. That is, MCQ tests survey mental limits related to recognizing single correct responses and therefore, this way to deal with testing can't give an immediate proportion of test-takers utilization of metacognitive cycles like CT, intelligent judgment, and attitude towards CT.