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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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