Design and validation of CRISENSE, a novel critical competence assessment tool for Spanish adolescents and young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• This study emphasizes the necessity of acquiring critical competence at all educational levels and the challenges associated with measuring it effectively. • The research introduces CRISENSE, a newly developed critical competency measurement tool in Spanish, addressing three key dimensions: comprehension, deduction, and critical positioning. • CRISENSE reviews existing critical thinking tests such as that of Watson-Glasser and Halpern, stepping towards critical competence. • The tool underwent rigorous validation, including expert pre-testing and evaluation with a diverse sample of 575 students across secondary, high school, and university levels. • Results indicated strong validity and reliability of CRISENSE scores, supported by satisfactory psychometric indices, making it a valuable resource for assessing critical thinking in Spanish-speaking students. The acquisition of critical competence is essential at all educational levels. The measurement of this competency presents a significant challenge, particularly considering the methodological complexities involved. Developing tests to assess critical competence requires rigorous processes of elaboration and validation, without which the validity of the results can be affected. Most existing Spanish tests are translations from other languages –such as English. This often affects the readability of the questions, and in turn the validity of the tests. To address this issue, this study proposes and validates CRISENSE, a critical competency measurement tool created in Spanish that addresses three dimensions: comprehension, deduction, and critical positioning. CRISENSE was designed based on the existing Watson-Glasser and Halpern critical thinking tests, and pre-tested by a panel of experts in critical competence and reading comprehension. The resulting tool was subjected to testing with a sample population of 575 students, comprising individuals from secondary, high school, and university levels of education. The psychometric properties of the test were evaluated through descriptive analysis, item homogeneity, confirmatory factor analysis, and a measurement invariance study between sexes and between educational levels. Additionally, the reliability of the scores was evaluated using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. The results demonstrated positive evidence of validity and reliability of the test scores, exhibiting satisfactory adjustment indices and coefficients in each analysis. Consequently, the critical thinking test can be deemed as a valuable tool for assessing this construct in Spanish students, contributing to the expansion of current scientific evidence on this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".