Abstract
Introduction: Students and professionals in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) need to exhibit good critical thinking (CT) skills when engaged in clinical tasks. CSD clinicians must make decisions that are free from biases and support their claim with facts. Thus, CSD clinicians need to be trained to question their clinical practices and to skeptically evaluate new practices that develop. A content-specific CT test can help determine if students are developing these skills. However, to date, no such content-specific CT assessment exists for CSD. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the current version of a specific content CT assessment, the Critical Thinking in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CTCSD). Methods: A sample of 150 CSD graduate students enrolled in three programs participated. They completed an online Qualtrics survey that consisted of the CTCSD. They completed the Qualtrics survey twice, once at the beginning of a semester and once at the end. The participant responses were independently scored by two research associates. The data were analyzed for reliability in three ways. Intra-subject reliability was assessed by comparing scores across the two testing sessions. Internal consistency of the items to measure a common construct was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman’s Lambda 6. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. In addition, the time used to complete the survey was analyzed. Results: The students from the three programs scored similarly on the CTCSD. High reliability ratings occurred for the intra-subject, internal consistency, and inter-rater measures. Discussion/Conclusion: The results indicate the reliability of the CTCSD. In combination with previous results indicating the face, construct, and criterion validity of the CTCSD, it appears to have psychometric strength. The CTCSD may help academic and clinical faculty select learning activities and focus feedback to their graduate students in order to reinforce skills the students exhibit and to develop other skills.
References
1.
Bloom
B
, Engelhart
M
, Furst
E
, Hill
W
, Krathwohl
D
. Taxonomy of education objectives: the classification of education goals handbook 1: cognitive domain
. New York
: David McKay
; 1956
. p. 206
.2.
Gunter
CD
, LeJeune
JB
. Critical thinking in clinical practice in speech-language pathology
. Dubuque, IA, USA
: Kendall Hunt
; 2015
. p. 119
.3.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
. Knowledge and skills needed by speech-language pathologists providing clinical supervision
. 2008
. Available from: https://www.asha.org/policy/ks2008-00294/#sec1.2.3.4.
Sharadgah
T
, A Sa’di
R
, Ahmad
H
. Promoting and assessing EFL college students’ critical thinking skills through argumentative essay writing
. Arab World Engl J
. 2019
;10
(4
):133
–50
.5.
Ennis
RH
. Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision
. Topoi
. 2018
;37
(1
):165
–84
.6.
Liu
OL
, Mao
L
, Frankel
L
, Xu
J
. Assessing critical thinking in higher education: the HEIghten™ approach and preliminary validity evidence
. Assess Eval High Educ
. 2016
;41
(5
):677
–94
.7.
Facione
NC
, Facione
PA
, Sanchez
CA
. Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory
. J Nurs Educ
. 1994
;33
(8
):345
–50
.8.
Halpern
DF
. Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking
. Mahwah, NJ, USA
: Erlbaum
; 2003
. p. 640
.9.
Thomas
CL
, Hayes
AR
. Using exploratory structural equation modeling to investigate the construct validity of the critical thinking disposition scale
. J Psychoeduc Assess
. 2021
;39
(5
):073428292199056
–8
.10.
Scully
D
. Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking
. Pract Assess Res Eval
. 2017
;22
(4
).11.
Dewey
J
. How we think
. Boston
: D. C. Heath & Co.
; 1910
. Retrieved from: https://assets.cambridge.org/052100/9847/sample/0521009847ws.pdf.12.
Fisher
A
. Critical thinking: an introduction
. New York
: Cambridge University Press
; 2001
. p. 302
.13.
Finn
P
, Brundage
SB
, DiLollo
A
. Preparing our future helping professionals to become critical thinkers: a tutorial
. Perspect ASHA Spec Int Groups
. 2016
;1
(10
):43
–68
.14.
Browne
MN
, Keeley
SM
. Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking
. 11th ed.Upper Saddle River
: Prentice Hall
; 2015
. p. 176
.15.
Kahneman
D
. Thinking, fast and slow
. New York
: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
; 2011
. p. 499
.16.
Facione
PA
. The disposition toward critical thinking: it’s character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill
. Informal Log
. 2000
;20
(1
):61
–84
.17.
Broadbear
J
, Jin
G
, Bierma
T
. Critical thinking dispositions among undergraduate students during their introductory health education course
. Health Educ
. 2005
;37
(1
):8
–15
.18.
Possin
K
. A field guide to critical-thinking assessment
. Teach Philos
. 2008
;31
(3
):201
–28
.19.
Davies
M
. Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered
. High Educ Res Dev
. 2013
;32
(4
):529
–44
.20.
Ennis
RH
. Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research
. Educ Res
. 1989
;18
(3
):4
–10
.21.
22.
Beyer
BK
. Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking
. Boston
: Allyn and Bacon
; 1987
. p. 273
.23.
McPeck
J
. Critical thinking and education
. New York
: St. Martin’s Press
; 1981
. p. 174
.24.
Abrami
PC
, Bernard
RM
, Borokhovski
E
, Waddington
DI
, Wade
CA
, Persson
T
. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis
. Rev Educ Res
. 2015
;85
(2
):275
–314
.25.
Ennis
R
, Weir
E
. The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test
. Pacific Grove
: Midwest Publications
; 1985
. p. 17
.26.
Facione
P
. The California critical thinking skills test: college level: interpreting the CCTST, group norms and sub-scores
. Millbrae
: California Academic Press
; 1990
. p. 19
. (Technical Report No. #4).27.
Halpern
DF
. Halpern critical thinking assessment. schuhfried (Vienna test system)
; 2010
. Retrieved from: http://www.schuhfried.at.28.
Stein
B
, Haynes
A
, Redding
M
, Ennis
T
, Cecil
M
. Assessing critical thinking in STEM and beyond
. In: Iskander
M
, editor. Innovations in E-learning, instruction technology, assessment, and engineering education
. Dordrecht
: Springer
; 2007
. p. 79
–82
.29.
Abrami
PC
, Bernard
RM
, Borokhovski
E
, Wade
A
, Surkes
MA
, Tamim
R
, . Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis
. Rev Educ Res
. 2008
;78
(4
):1102
–34
.30.
Lenchuk
I
, Ahmed
A
. Tapping into Bloom taxonomy’s higher-order cognitive processes: the case for multiple choice questions as a valid assessment tool in the ESP classroom
. Arab World Engl J
. 2021
(1
):160
–71
.31.
Stein
B
, Haynes
A
. Engaging faculty in the assessment and improvement of students’ critical thinking using the critical thinking assessment test
. Mag Higher Learn
. 2011
;43
(2
):44
–9
.32.
Stein
B
, Haynes
A
, Redding
M
, Harris
K
, Tylka
M
, Lisic
E
. Faculty driven assessment of critical thinking: national dissemination of the CAT instrument
. In: Elleithy
K
, Sobh
T
, Iskander
M
, Kapila
V
, Karim
M
, Mahmood
A
, editors. Technological developments in networking, education and automation
. Dordrecht, Netherlands
: Springer
; 2010
. p. 44
–9
.33.
Yuan
SP
, Liao
HC
, Wang
YH
, Chou
MJ
. Development of a scale to measure the critical thinking disposition of medical care professionals
. Soc Behav Pers
. 2014
;42
(2
):303
–11
.34.
Renaud
RD
, Murray
HG
. A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking
. Think Skills Creativ
. 2008
;3
(2
):85
–93
.35.
Macpherson
K
, Owen
C
. Assessment of critical thinking ability in medical students
. Assess Eval High Educ
. 2010
;35
(1
):41
–54
.36.
Jensen
JL
, McDaniel
MA
, Woodard
SM
, Kummer
TA
. Teaching to the Test…or testing to teach: exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understandingor testing to teach: exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding
. Educ Psychol Rev
. 2014
;26
(2
):307
–29
.37.
Orlikoff
R
, Schiavetti
N
, Metz
D
. Evaluating research in communication disorders
. 7th ed.Boston
: Pearson Education
; 2015
. p. 504
.38.
Ratner
NB
. Evidence-based practice: an examination of its ramifications for the practice of speech-language pathology
. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
. 2006
;37
(4
):257
–67
.39.
Dollaghan
CA
. The handbook for evidence-based practice in communication disorders
. Baltimore
: Paul H. Brookes
; 2007
. p. 108
.40.
Kamhi
AG
. Balancing certainty and uncertainty in clinical practice
. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
. 2011
;42
(1
):59
–64
.41.
Kida
T
. Don’t believe everything that you think: the 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking
. Amherst
: Prometheus Books
; 2006
. p. 286
.42.
Finn
P
, Bothe
AK
, Bramlett
RE
. Science and pseudoscience in communication disorders: criteria and applications
. Am J Speech Lang Pathol
. 2005
;14
(3
):172
–86
.43.
Kamhi
AG
. Problem solving in child language disorders: the clinician as clinical scientist
. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
. 1984
;15
(4
):226
–34
.44.
Morris
RJ
, Gorham-Rowan
MM
, Robinson
J
, Scholz
K
. On the selectivity, specificity and signalling potential of the long-distance movement of messenger RNA
. Teach Learn Commun Sci Disord
. 2018
;43
(1
):1
–7
.45.
Morris
RJ
, Brockner
AE
, Coleman
SE
. Effectiveness of two methods for teaching critical thinking to communication sciences and disorders undergraduates
. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol
. 2019
;43
(1
):35
–48
.46.
Taber
KS
. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education
. Res Sci Educ
. 2018
;48
(6
):1273
–96
.47.
McHugh
ML
. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic
. Biochem Med
. 2012
;22
(3
):276
–82
.48.
Finn
P
. Critical thinking: knowledge and skills for evidence-based practice
. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch
. 2011
;42
(1
):69
–72
; discussion 88–93. http://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0037.49.
Papp
KK
, Huang
GC
, Lauzon Clabo
LM
, Delva
D
, Fischer
M
, Konopasek
L
, . Milestones of critical thinking: a developmental model for medicine and nursing
. Acad Med
. 2014
;89
(5
):715
–20
.50.
Procaccini
SJ
, Carlino
NJ
, Joseph
DM
. Clinical teaching methods for stimulating students’ critical thinking
. Perspect ASHA Spec Int Groups
. 2016
;1
(11
):3
–17
.51.
Grillo
EU
, Koenig
MA
, Gunter
CD
, Kim
S
. Teaching CSD graduate students to think critically, apply evidence, and write professionally
. Commun Disord Q
. 2015
;36
(4
):241
–51
.52.
Terwee
CB
, Bot
SD
, de Boer
MR
, van der Windt
DA
, Knol
DL
, Dekker
J
, . Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
. J Clin Epidemiol
. 2007
;60
(1
):34
–42
.© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2022
You do not currently have access to this content.
