MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022089175 · doi:10.5539/hes.v2n2p138

Construct Validity Examination of Critical Thinking Dispositions for Undergraduate Students in University Putra Malaysia

2012· article· en· W2022089175 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahim Nazem Mahmoud Ghadi, Nor Hayati Alwi, Kamariah Abu Bakar, Othman Talib

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityCronbach's alphaPsychologyConstruct (python library)Likert scaleReliability (semiconductor)Confirmatory factor analysisCritical thinkingValidityTest validityPsychometricsSocial psychologyMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to evaluate the psychology properties of the construct validity for the Critical Thinking Disposition (CTD) instrument. The CTD instrument consists of 39 Likert-type items measuring seven dispositions, namely analyticity, open-mind, truth-seeking, systematicity, self-confidence inquisitiveness and maturity. The study involves 433 undergraduate students in University Putra Malaysia. The findings showed that the CTD has satisfactory construct validity with seven factors extracted and confirmed by confirmatory factor analyses. Construct validity results are supported with the Cronbach’s alpha values which indicates high validity and reliability for the instrument to measure critical thinking dispositions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207