Assessment

http://asm.sagepub.com Personality Traits and Critical Thinking Skills in College Students: Empirical Tests of a Two-Factor Theory
Jennifer S. Clifford, Magdalen M. Boufal and John E. Kurtz Assessment 2004; 11; 169 DOI: 10.1177/1073191104263250 The online version of this article can be found at: http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/169

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Assessment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://asm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 17 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/2/169

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

ASSESSMENT

Clifford 10.1177/1073191104263250 et al. / TWO FACTORS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Personality Traits and Critical Thinking Skills in College Students

Empirical Tests of a Two-Factor Theory
Jennifer S. Clifford Magdalen M. Boufal John E. Kurtz
Villanova University The two-factor theory defines critical thinking skills as a combined effect of cognitive abilities and personality dispositions. Although the available research supports the association between critical thinking and measures of cognitive ability, the specific traits contained in the dispositional factor have not been clearly identified through empirical research. In Study 1, 101 undergraduate students completed the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), three subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition, and the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that Openness to Experience scores accounted for significant incremental variance in WGCTA scores beyond that accounted for by Similarities subtest scores. In Study 2, similar analyses of data from 105 students also showed significant incremental effects for Openness to Experience, even after more variance in the cognitive factor was accounted for by the Verbal Comprehension Index. Implications of these findings for the enhancement of critical thinking skills in college students are discussed. Keywords: critical thinking; intelligence; personality; five factor model; openness The development of critical thinking (CT) skills among college students is increasingly considered a fundamental goal of higher education. Educational research has demonstrated that CT skills, such as evaluating reasons, evidence, or conclusions, can predict college grade point average (Behrens, 1996; Taube, 1997; Watson & Glaser, 1980), course grades (Watson & Glaser, 1980; Wilson & Wagner, 1981), and graduate student success (Garett & Wulf, 1978). The necessity to develop CT skills across the curriculum in higher education has become a primary goal for educators nationwide (Facione, Sanchez, Facione, & Gainen, 1995). To reach this goal, educational researchers from many colleges and universities have designed various educational initiatives to enhance CT. Consequently, the demand for standardized measures of CT ability has grown in order to evaluate teaching programs and provide evidence for gains in these skills among students. Despite widespread institutional initiatives and teaching methods designed to enhance CT, little empirical research exists investigating the attributes that contribute to individual differences in these skills. Such information is essential for constructing effective assessment approaches and formulating testable hypotheses about change. Traditionally, the ability to think critically has been described as a set of predominantly cognitive skills (Halonen, 1995). The standard approach to developing CT has focused on

Studies 1 and 2 are based on masters theses by the first and second authors, respectively, under the supervision of the third author. The authors are grateful to the Psychology Department of Villanova University for financial support of this research and to Corinne Leach for providing independent ratings for the rater reliability analyses. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John E. Kurtz, Psychology Department, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085-1699; e-mail: John.Kurtz@ Villanova.edu.
Assessment, Volume 11, No. 2, June 2004 169-176 DOI: 10.1177/1073191104263250 2004 Sage Publications

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

170

ASSESSMENT

teaching logic and reasoning skills. Recently, theorists in education have proposed that individual differences in CT result from a combination of cognitive ability and personality dispositions (Ennis, 1987; Facione et al., 1995; Halpern, 1998; Hudgins, Riesenmy, Ebel, & Edelman, 1989; Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992), a proposal referred to here as the two-factor theory. Ennis (1985), an early advocate of the two-factor theory of CT, stated that a first step in analysis of critical thinking for purposes of curriculum decisions, teaching, and evaluation is to break up critical thinking into dispositions and abilities (p. 48). Empirical support for the two-factor theory of CT is currently limited. Most published reports correlate CT performance with either cognitive ability or personality dispositions separately. One exception is the work of Taube (1997), who used confirmatory factor analysis to study the relationships between scores on the WatsonGlaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA; Watson & Glaser, 1980) and the Ennis-Weir (Ennis & Weir, 1985) tests of CT, SAT scores, and high school grade point averages (GPAs) in a sample of undergraduate education majors. Hypothetically relevant personality dispositions were assessed by scales measuring ambiguity tolerance (MacDonald, 1970), preferences for fact-oriented instruction (Checklist of Educational Views; Perry, Sprinthall, Wideman, & Jones, 1968), and need for cognition (Need for Cognition Scale; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Taubes (1997) data showed that a two-factor theory provided better fit to the data than a single ability factor. The first factor in the two-factor theory was defined by high loadings from SAT and GPA, and the second factor was defined by high loadings from the three personality measures. The WGCTA obtained significant loading only on the first component, defined by the cognitive variables. The Ennis-Weir, an essay test of CT in which examinees arguments are graded for evidence of critical thought processes, obtained significant loadings on both factors, but the loading was much higher on the first (cognitive) factor. Although Taube interpreted these data as supportive of a two-factor theory, it appears that cognitive ability explains a larger amount of the variance in predicting CT skills, especially as estimated by the WGCTA. Taubes study provides inconclusive evidence regarding the validity of a two-factor model of CT due to potential inadequacies in the measures chosen. SAT scores and GPA are imperfect estimates of general cognitive ability. Examinees have access to preparatory materials for the SAT, and some students take the test more than once. Variance in GPA is correlated with extraneous factors such as personal motivation and curriculum difficulty. These problems may be alleviated through the use of standardized intelligence tests. Moreover, the personality scales chosen for Taubes study assess a few highly specific dispositions, which may

constitute an overly narrow approach to identifying the personality of a critical thinker. It remains unknown if the inclusion of other personality dimensions, or more reliable and valid instruments, would have generated stronger support for the two-factor theory. Prior empirical research supports associations between standardized measures of CT and cognitive ability. Measures of students intellectual ability, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test (WAIS), correlate with CT, as assessed by the WGCTA (Watson & Glaser, 1980). Group intelligence tests (e.g., Otis Mental Ability Test, HenmonNelson Tests of Mental Ability) also exhibit a significant positive relationship with CT skills (Watson & Glaser, 1980; Westbrook & Sellers, 1967). The correlations obtained in these studies range from .28 to .65, suggesting that a considerable portion of variance accounting for CT may be independent of cognitive ability. This accommodates the hypothetical role of a second factor, possibly defined by specific personality traits, in accounting for the remaining unexplained variance. Relatively fewer studies have explored the importance of personality dispositions in understanding individual differences in CT ability. Instead, theorists have offered qualitative descriptions of the personality traits of an effective critical thinker (Beyer, 1995; DeNitto & Strickland, 1987; Ennis, 1987; Facione, Facione, & Sanchez, 1994; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992; Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992). The result is an abundance of dispositional terms used to describe the personality of a critical thinker. Multiple theorists use different words to describe the same trait, and a number of attributes cited are not commonly recognized personality traits. The fivefactor model (FFM) of personality aims to provide a comprehensive yet concise taxonomy of personality trait dimensions, based on converging lines of empirical research on natural language trait terms and personality questionnaires (McCrae & John, 1992). We applied the FFM to the two-factor model of CT by collecting all the dispositional terms contained in the seven sources referenced above and sorting them into their respective FFM dimensions. Although this conceptual exercise suggested that three FFM dimensionsopenness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeablenessare frequently included in descriptions of CT dispositions, empirical verification of these hypothesized relationships is needed using all five FFM trait variables. STUDY 1 The two-factor theory proposes that cognitive abilities and personality traits are important to CT performance, but researchers have contributed little empirical data to

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Clifford et al. / TWO FACTORS OF CRITICAL THINKING 171

support this model. Research has shown that measures of CT ability are associated with measures of general intelligence, but less research is available on the specific areas of intellectual functioning that have an impact on CT. Furthermore, it is unclear which personality traits can contribute uniquely to the prediction of CT performance beyond measures of cognitive ability. Study 1 tested the validity of the two-factor theory by concurrent administration of three different measures of cognitive ability and a broad inventory of normal personality traits. Because ample evidence exists to support the relationship between general intellectual ability and CT, these data were gathered to test whether significant incremental prediction of CT could be gained from the trait dimensions of the FFM taxonomy. Method
Participants

Two other measures that were evaluated, the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Ennis, Millman, & Tomko, 1985) and the California Critical Thing Skills Test (Facione, 1990), were not selected due to reliability estimates below .70 in several of the field-testing samples. Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition (WAIS-III, 1997). The structure of the WAIS-III has been strengthened by the organization of intellectual functioning into four discrete cognitive domains labeled verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, working memory, and processing speed. Recent factor analytic studies (Ward, Ryan, & Axelrod, 2000) have suggested that threefactor models may provide the best balance of parsimony and goodness of fit to the standardization data. Thus, the present study provides a broad assessment of cognitive ability using one representative subtest from each of the first three cognitive domains: Similarities (verbal comprehension), Matrix Reasoning (perceptual organization), and Letter-Number Sequencing (working memory). Similarities is a measure of verbal reasoning in which the examinee is orally presented two common objects or concepts and asked to state how they are alike. Because some degree of examiner judgment is required to score this subtest, interrater reliability was calculated by randomly selecting 30 protocols to be scored independently by a second rater trained in the administration and scoring of the WAIS-III. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the total Similarities scores across judges was .90. Raw scores from all three WAIS-III subtests were standardized to scaled scores using the age norms appropriate to each case. Similarities scaled scores ranged from 6 to 17 (M = 10.9, SD = 2.0). Matrix-Reasoning is a new subtest in the WAISIII battery that requires an examinee to look at a matrix from which a section is missing and choose one of five response options that completes the matrix. Scaled scores on this subtest ranged from 6 to 16 (M = 12.3, SD = 2.1). Letter-Number Sequencing is another new WAIS-III subtest in which the examiner reads a sequence of letters and numbers and the examinee is asked to recall the numbers first in ascending order and then the letters in alphabetical order. Performances on this subtest were especially high relative to the standardization sample, ranging from 7 to 18 (M = 13.6, SD = 2.8). IQ estimates for each participant were computed by converting the average of the three scaled scores to an IQ score equivalent; the resulting estimated IQ scores ranged from 95 to 127 (M = 110.7, SD = 7.7). NEO-Personality InventoryRevised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R is widely used to measure FFM personality traits. The inventory contains 240 items, answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). The

One hundred one university undergraduates, 61 women and 40 men, served as participants in Study 1. The average age of these students was 19.2 years and ranged from 18 to 21 years; information on class year, ethnicity, and GPA was not gathered. Participants for the study were recruited from two sources: introductory psychology courses (n = 66) and campus residence halls (n = 35). The introductory psychology students received credit toward course requirements, and the residence hall students received payment of $10 for completing the study protocol.
Measures

WGCTA. The WGCTA (Watson & Glaser, 1980) is made up of five subtests of 16 items each: Inference, Recognition of Assumptions, Deduction, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Arguments, each designed to tap a somewhat different aspect of the broad CT construct. The test format consists of reading passages followed by multiplechoice items associated with the preceding passage. The WGCTA can be administered individually or in groups and is appropriate for individuals with at least a ninthgrade reading ability. The WGCTA is administered as a power test; participants are allowed as much time as needed to complete the test. The manual reports corrected split-half reliability coefficients ranging from .69 to .85; a sample of 139 freshmen in 4-year colleges obtained a reliability coefficient of .80. The WGCTA was chosen for this study based on field testing of three standardized CT instruments with large samples of undergraduate students across all five colleges of a private eastern university. The internal consistency of WGCTA total scores, estimated by a corrected split-half reliability correlation, averaged .85 across the five college samples, ranging from .78 to .87.

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

172

ASSESSMENT

TABLE 1 Intercorrelation Matrix of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition, the NEO-Personality InventoryRevised, and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisala Scores: Study 1
1 1. Similarities 2. Matrix Reasoning 3. Letter-Number Sequencing 4. Neuroticism 5. Extraversion 6. Openness 7. Agreeableness 8. Conscientiousness 9. WGCTA .14 .12 .05 .05 .03 .04 .12 .25* 2 .17 .07 .05 .13 .13 .02 .11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

.02 .01 .17 .03 .04 .11

.12 .00 .06 .22 .10

.06 .02 .07 .07

.16 .10 .28*

.09 .03

.05

a. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Form A) raw scores. *p < .01.

five domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness are each composites of six subscales called facet scales. Alpha coefficients and test-retest correlations for the five domain scales and the 30 facet scales demonstrate strong internal and temporal reliability (Costa & McCrae, 1992). NEO-PI-R scores from the current sample were standardized based on a reference group of college-age individuals. The mean scores for all five domains were within the 45-to-55 T-score range designated as average (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and individual scores ranged widely.
Procedure

Testing was conducted over two sessions. The WGCTA was administered to groups of up to 15 students. To promote adequate effort on this test, participants were encouraged to give their best effort and continue working for a minimum of 30 minutes. The second session was typically completed within 7 days and consisted of individual administrations of the WAIS-III and NEO-PI-R. The order of test administration in the second session was randomly alternated to control for possible sequence effects. The order of WAIS-III subtests followed a fixed order consistent with their sequence in the full battery.
Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents the intercorrelations between the independent variables from the WAIS-III and NEO-PI-R and the WGCTA score criterion. Among the WAIS-III predictors, only the Similarities subtest was significantly correlated with WGCTA scores. The intercorrelations among the WAIS-III subtests are lower than those reported for the standardization sample, but they support these measures as independent aspects of intellectual functioning in this sample. Among the NEO-PI-R predictors, only Openness

to Experience was significantly correlated with WGCTA scores. There were low intercorrelations among the five NEO-PI-R scores (range = .12 to .22; mean absolute r = .09), which supports the conceptualization of these trait domains as independent factors. Collinearity diagnostics confirmed the absence of multicollinearity among the cognitive ability and FFM dispositional predictors. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 2. Student gender (men = 0, women = 1) and age in years were entered first into the equation. These features together account for 4.8% of the variance in WGCTA scores, which was not a statistically significant gain in prediction. On the basis of empirical research suggesting that cognitive ability accounts for a larger proportion of CT variance (e.g., Taube, 1997), the three WAIS-III subtests were entered in the second step, using a stepwise method of entry. The stepwise method was used rather than forced entry of all three variables to account for the maximum amount of variance due to cognitive ability with the fewest variables. Given the modest sample size, the power of the test of incremental validity for the trait variables would be compromised by forcing the inclusion of all 10 predictors into the equation. Only Similarities was retained in the equation, and this variable explained an additional 5.2% of the variance in WGCTA scores. Thus, verbal reasoning skills, as measured by the WAIS-III Similarity subtest, add significant incremental variance to the prediction of CT ability beyond gender and age. Attention and concentration skills, as measured by immediate auditory recall of alphanumeric strings, and nonverbal abstract reasoning, as measured by completing sequences of pattern matrices, are relatively unrelated to CT. In Step 3, the five NEO-PI-R variables were entered using a stepwise method. Only Openness to Experience was retained in the equation, and this variable explained an additional 6.3% of WGCTA variance. Thus, in accordance with the two-factor theory of CT, personality dispositions

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Clifford et al. / TWO FACTORS OF CRITICAL THINKING 173

TABLE 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting WGCTA Scores: Study 1

Step: Predictor 1: Gender Age 2: Similarities 3: Openness R .22 .32 .40 Part r .08 .14 .23 .25 R (%) 4.8 5.2 6.3
2

Method
Participants p .090 .020 .009

Fchange 2.47 5.64 7.21

NOTE: Part r = semipartial correlations obtained from the full model (Step 3).

One hundred five university undergraduates, 71 women and 34 men, served as participants in Study 2. The mean age of these students was 19.1 years and ranged from 18 to 22 years. Of the sample, 46% were freshmen, 38% were sophomores, 11% were juniors, and 6% were seniors. All participants received credit toward the requirements of an introductory psychology course for completing the study protocol.
Measures and Procedure

related to Openness to Experience add significant incremental variance to the prediction of CT beyond cognitive ability. The combination of Similarities and Openness scores accounted for 11.8% of the WGCTA variance. The purpose of Study 1 was to test empirically the twofactor theory by a concurrent assessment of both cognitive and dispositional factors of CT using a diverse set of intellectual challenges and the FFM trait taxonomy. The results offer preliminary empirical support for the two-factor theory of CT in that specific cognitive abilities and personality traits are independently related to performance on the WGCTA. Although specific relationships of CT with verbal ability and an open-minded disposition seem conceptually reasonable, the small effects reported here demand cross-validation in another sample of college students. Moreover, the amount of CT variance accounted for by the single cognitive ability variable was modest in comparison to previous estimates. Further study of the relationship between verbal reasoning and CT performance might enhance the assessment of these abilities by using the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), which combines the scores from the Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information subtests of the WAIS-III. Accounting for more variance in CT due to cognitive ability would provide a more stringent test of the incremental gain in prediction due to openness. STUDY 2 Study 2 was conducted to cross-validate the specific association between openness and CT found in Study 1. Furthermore, Study 2 provided a more comprehensive assessment of verbal abilities, which were identified as the strongest cognitive predictor of CT performance in Study 1. Accordingly, all three WAIS-III subtests that compose the VCI were administered to test further the unique association between CT and trait dispositions such as Openness to Experience.

WGCTA. The WGCTA was administered following the same procedures as in Study 1. Participants were tested in groups of up to 12 participants during the first of two assessment sessions. The distribution of WGCTA scores obtained in Study 2 (M = 58.2, SD = 8.0) was comparable to that obtained in Study 1 (M = 57.0, SD = 8.4). Coefficient alpha for the total score in Study 2 was .76. WAIS-III VCI. The three WAIS-III subtests that make up the VCI, Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information, were administered to participants individually during the second assessment session. Age-scaled Vocabulary scores ranged from 5 to 19 (M = 12.9, SD = 1.9), Similarity scores ranged from 7 to 17 (M = 11.2, SD = 2.0), and Information scores ranged from 7 to 18 (M = 12.7, SD = 2.0). To evaluate interrater reliability, 35 protocols were randomly selected for rescoring by a second trained rater. Intraclass correlations of the total scores across judges were .92, .94, and .98 for Vocabulary, Similarities, and Information, respectively. The mean VCI in this sample (M = 36.7, SD = 4.4) corresponds to an IQ equivalent of approximately 110 and a range from 88 to 136. NEO-PI-R. Participants completed the NEO-PI-R during the second session. Order of administration for the NEO-PI-R and WAIS-III was alternated randomly. Again, the mean T-scores for all five domains were within the average range of 45 to 55, and individual scores ranged widely.
Results and Discussion

Table 3 presents the intercorrelations between the WAIS-III and NEO-PI-R predictors and the WGCTA criterion scores. The VCI was the highest correlate of the WGCTA, whereas Openness again emerged as the strongest trait correlate. A significant (p < .05) negative association was found with Conscientiousness. As in Study 1, the VCI was not highly associated with any of the five trait

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

174

ASSESSMENT

TABLE 3 Intercorrelation Matrix of Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition, the NEO-Personality InventoryRevised, and the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA)a Scores: Study 2
1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Verbal Comprehension Index Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness WGCTA .13 .17 .17 .18 .08 .39* 2 .18 .16 .03 .05 .07 3 4 5 6 7

.21 .16 .10 .01

.24 .03 .28*

.05 .19

.23

*p < .01.

TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Predicting WGCTA Scores: Study 2

Step: Predictor 1: Gender Age 2: Verbal Comprehension Index 3: Openness R .29 .44 .50 Part r .22 .11 .28 .24 R2 (%) 8.6 11.0 5.5 Fchange 4.78 13.79 7.38 p .010 < .001 .008

TABLE 5 Correlations Between WGCTA and Openness Facet Scores

Openness Facet O1: Fantasy O2: Aesthetics O3: Feelings O4: Actions O5: Ideas O6: Values Study 1 .11 .18 .08 .22* .24* .21* Study 2 .26** .00 .00 .13 .31** .18 Combined .17* .09 .04 .18* .25** .19**

NOTE: part r = semipartial correlations obtained from the full model (Step 3).

NOTE: Study 1 n = 101; Study 2 n = 105; combined n = 206. *p < .05. **p < .01.

scores, and the intercorrelations of the NEO-PI-R scores demonstrate low correlations among the traits (range = .21 to .24; mean absolute r = .12). The absence of multicollinearity among the predictors was confirmed. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4. Again, gender (men = 0, women = 1) and age were entered first in the equation. These variables together accounted for 8.6% of variance in CT. The part correlations from the full model indicate this significant effect is largely explained by a gender difference; men scored higher on the WGCTA than did women in this sample. The lack of consistent effects for gender and age across the two studies suggests that this gender difference is not a reliable finding. VCI scores were entered in Step 2, resulting in a significant increment in prediction. As expected, verbal intellectual skills predicted performance on the WGCTA, controlling for age and gender. In Step 3, the five trait scores from the NEO-PI-R were entered using a stepwise method. As in Study 1, only Openness scores were retained in the equation. Although more criterion variance was accounted for by the VCI in the previous step than by Similarities in Study 1, Openness scores still explained a significant amount of additional variance in WGCTA scores.

To elaborate further the relationship between the broad trait domain of Openness to Experience and CT, Table 5 shows the correlations between the six facet scores from Openness and WGCTA scores in both samples separately and combined. The strongest and most consistent effects are seen for the Ideas facet, in which high scores indicate intellectual curiosity . . . open-mindedness and a willingness to consider new, perhaps unconventional ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 17). The Values facet assesses independence of judgment and the inclination to consider new ethical, social, and political viewpoints. Taken together, the data suggest that self-rated interests in evaluating and reconsidering ideas and beliefs, common attributes in rational descriptions of critical thinkers, are in fact associated with better scores on the WGCTA. GENERAL DISCUSSION Advocates of the two-factor theory depict CT ability as dependent on individual differences in both cognitive ability and personality dispositions. Despite great interest in this theory, published empirical data have been insufficient to verify the unique contribution of each factor to the prediction of CT ability. In the two studies reported here, a

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Clifford et al. / TWO FACTORS OF CRITICAL THINKING 175

combination of verbal intellectual ability, represented by scores on the WAIS-III, and an open-minded disposition, represented by scores on the Openness to Experience scale of the NEO-PI-R, are significantly and independently associated with performance on a measure of CT skills. These findings lend empirical support to the rational conceptualizations of effective critical thinkers prominent in the educational literature. The advantage of this comprehensive approach to the assessment of personality disposition using the FFM is that all major personality dimensions, including some that might have unrecognized relevance to CT skills, were considered. The FFM dimension of openness to experience is congruent with qualitative descriptions of critical thinkers using terms such as intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, and flexibility (Beyer, 1995; Ennis, 1987; Halpern, 1998; Paul, 1992; Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992). Creativity is related to the broad dimension of Openness to Experience (McCrae, 1987), and one study found that scores on a selfreport creativity scale correlate significantly with the WGCTA (Gadzella & Penland, 1995). Empirical studies using concurrent personality and intelligence test scores have demonstrated that Openness to Experience yields higher correlations with intelligence measures than the other FFM dimensions (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Thus, the findings here of an association between openness and CT are strengthened by concurrent cognitive ability estimates to control for the potential association between openness and intelligence. Past descriptions of the personality of a critical thinker have also included traits that may be subsumed under the dimension of Conscientiousness, such as the need for order, systematic problem-solving styles, diligence, and carefulness (DeNitto & Strickland, 1987;Facione et al., 1994; Halpern, 1998; Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992). Other terms to describe important attitudes of a critical thinker are relevant to low Agreeableness, such as intellectual skepticism (Zechmeister & Johnson, 1992) and an inclination to doubt (DeNitto & Strickland, 1987). However, the collective findings of these studies do not provide empirical support for these accounts. The two remaining dimensions of the FFM, Extraversion and Neuroticism, are unrelated to the criterion measure of CT ability in both samples. The finding that both cognitive abilities and personality dispositions contribute to differences in CT ability has a number of implications for college student development. Educators interested in enhancing CT abilities among students might focus their efforts on those aspects that are most amenable to interventions. Although theoretical concepts of both verbal intelligence and openness do not depict these attributes as highly changeable over short periods of time, empirical research on these issues is lim-

ited. On the other hand, research indicates that significant gains in measured CT skills have been found following exposure to a college curriculum (McMillan, 1987; Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, & Terenzini, 1996). The important question for further research is which of the two proposed factors accounts for changes in CT ability. Do increases in CT performance represent growth in verbal ability, changes in openness to experience, or both? Both factors in the two-factor model may be affected by exposure to the college environment. Enrolling at a university or college provides a range of opportunities to experience new activities, alternative ideas, and a culture of intellectualism that is often unavailable in the previous home environment. These experiences may foster alternative ways of thinking and increase ones standing on the openness dimension. Intensive instruction in writing skills and reading challenging texts may lead to measurable increases in verbal intelligence among successful college students. A longitudinal study of CT development during the college years that includes measures of both the cognitive and dispositional (openness) components of the two-factor theory would effectively address these questions. A few limitations of the present studies are acknowledged. Although the effects of both factors were statistically significant, the proportions of variance accounted for indicate that a sizable portion of WGCTA variance is not explained by cognitive skills or personality traits. Thus, the current findings leave room for additional variables or factors, such as GPA, to have important relationships with CT skills. Perhaps some unique and unmeasured aspect of CT can account for changes observed during higher education. The current findings also rest on the adequacy of the WGCTA as a criterion measure of the CT construct. Further research should employ additional methods of CT assessment, such as the essay test used by Taube (1997). Multiple measures of CT, cognitive ability, and personality trait factors would allow for the use of confirmatory factor analysis or other structural modeling techniques. Finally, larger samples of students from diverse institutions of higher learning would produce more robust and generalizable estimates of the relations between cognitive and dispositional attributes and the propensity to think critically. REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245. Behrens, P. J. (1996). The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and academic performance of diploma school students. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 34-36. Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

176

ASSESSMENT Pascarella, E. T., Bohr, L., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Is differential exposure to college linked to the development of critical thinking? Research in Higher Education, 37, 159-175. Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. Perry, W. G., Sprinthall, N. A., Wideman, J. W., & Jones, F. J. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare. Taube, K. T. (1997). Critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written critical thinking test. Journal of General Education, 46, 129-164. Ward, L. C., Ryan, J. J., & Axelrod, B. N. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the WAIS-III standardization data. Psychological Assessment, 12, 341-345. Watson, G. B., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual, Forms A and B. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition. (1997). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Westbrook, B. W., & Sellers, J. R. (1967). Critical thinking, intelligence, and vocabulary. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 443-446. Wilson, D. G., & Wagner, E. E. (1981). The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal as a predictor of performance in a critical thinking course. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 13191322. Zechmeister, E. B., & Johnson, J. E. (1992). Critical thinking: A functional approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. DeNitto, J., & Strickland, J. (1987). Critical thinking: A skill for all seasons. College Student Journal, 21, 201-204. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43, 44-48. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: Freeman. Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomko, T. N. (1985). Cornell Critical Thinking Test (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. Ennis, R. H., & Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press. Facione, P. A. (1990). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Millbrae: California Academic Press. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33, 345-350. Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44, 1-25. Gadzella, B. M., & Penland, E. (1995). Is creativity related to scores on critical thinking? Psychological Reports, 77, 817-818. Garett, K., & Wulf, K. (1978). The relationship of a measure of critical thinking ability to personality variables and to indicators of academic achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1181-1187. Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 75-81. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455. Hudgins, B. B., Riesenmy, M., Ebel, D., & Edelman, S. (1989). Childrens critical thinking: A model for its analysis and two examples. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 327-338. MacDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26, 791-798. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 12581265. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Normans adequate taxonomy: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215. McMillan, J. (1987). Enhancing college students critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Education, 26, 3-29.

Jennifer S. Clifford received her M.S. in general psychology from Villanova University in 1999. She has been a research associate at the Medical College of South Carolina, coordinating a series of studies on traumatic brain injury. She is currently a case manager with Eastern New Mexico Rehabilitation Services, treating adults with developmental disabilities. Magdalen M. Boufal received her M.S. in general psychology from Villanova University in 2002. She is currently completing her M.A. in art therapy from New York University and working as a therapist in the Philadelphia Public Schools. John E. Kurtz is an associate professor of psychology at Villanova University. He received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Vanderbilt University in 1994 and completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at Wayne State University in 1996. His research focuses on diverse approaches to psychological assessment for the study of adult personality development.

Downloaded from http://asm.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 29, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.