My Thinking Styles Technical Report

8/11/2019 My Thinking Styles Technical Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/my-thinking-styles-technical-report 1/16

My Thinking Styles

Copyright © 2011 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

TM

TECHNICAL REPORT

by Judy Chartrand



Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1

Purpose.......................................................................................................................................1

Conceptual Origins ....................................................................................................................1

Scale Development..........................................................................................................................3

Item Writing...............................................................................................................................3

Short Form Pilot Study ..............................................................................................................4

Long Form Pilot Study...............................................................................................................8

Interpretation................................................................................................................................13

Explaining What My Thinking Styles Scales Measure.............................................................13

Interpreting Results..................................................................................................................13

Summary .......................................................................................................................................13

References .....................................................................................................................................14

List of Tables

1 Short Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics ( N = 1,953) ..................................4

2 Short Form Scale Properties ( N = 1,953) ............................................................................5

3 Short Form Mean Scores by Gender ...................................................................................5

4 Short Form Item Means and Internal Consistency ( N = 1,953)...........................................6

5 Short Form Mean Scores by Self-Rated Critical Thinking .................................................6

6 Short Form Mean Scores by Education Level.....................................................................7

7 Short Form Mean Scores by Occupational Groups.............................................................7

8 Long Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics ( N = 300) .....................................8

9 My Thinking Styles Long Form Item Means .......................................................................9

10 Range of Long Form Item Means .......................................................................................9

11 Final Scale Internal Consistency .........................................................................................9

12 Final Scale Properties ( N = 300) .......................................................................................10

13 Final Scale Mean Scores by Gender..................................................................................10

14 Final Scale Mean Scores by Race/Ethnicity......................................................................10

15 Predicted Relationships Between My Thinking Styles and IPIP Constructs......................11

16 My Thinking Styles Inter-Scale Correlations....................................................................12




1

Introduction

Purpose

My Thinking Styles (MTS) measures seven different thinking styles—habits and behaviors that promote

effective critical thinking. All seven styles are positive habits that people use with different frequency.

Helping people identify their thinking style preferences enables them to become more aware of their

styles, how to use those styles to develop better thinking skills, and which styles they could use more

frequently. The assessment is ipsative in nature, enabling someone to compare the relative strength of hisor her thinking style preferences and identify their most and least preferred thinking styles. This

information is meant to increase self-awareness and support development efforts. My Thinking Styles is

not intended as a diagnostic or prospective tool, and should not be used for selection, promotion, or

classification purposes.

Conceptual Origins

The conceptual origins of the MTS are drawn from bodies of literature on critical thinking and personality. Critical thinking has a strong tradition in philosophy and education, whereas personality

emanates from the field of psychology. Over the years, the critical thinking literature has focused on the

components of critical thinking, how to assess it, and how to teach it so that students develop these

fundamental skills. The personality literature has focused on defining and measuring traits anddispositions to explain or predict behavior (e.g., workplace performance).

Critical Thinking

The critical thinking literature was influenced primarily by the work of a panel of critical thinking experts

who worked together from 1988–89 to define the skills and dispositions associated with critical thinking.

The result was a report (Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational

Assessment and Instruction) that came to be known as the Delphi Report (Facione, 1990). The panel of

experts characterized good critical thinkers as follows:

The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-

minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in

making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,

diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in

inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the

circumstances of inquiry permit (p. 2).

The panel identified the following dispositional characteristics that support effective critical thinking.

Affective dispositions of critical thinking approaches to life and living, in general:

* Inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues

* Concern to become and remain generally well-informed

* Alertness to opportunities to use CT

* Trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry

* Self-confidence in one's own ability to reason

* Open-mindedness regarding divergent world views

* Flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions

* Understanding of the opinions of other people

* Fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning




2

* Honesty in facing one's own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, egocentric or socio centric tendencies

* Prudence in suspending, making, or altering judgments

* Willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change

is warranted

Approaches to specific issues, questions, or problems:

* Clarity in stating the question or concern

* Orderliness in working with complexity* Diligence in seeking relevant information,

* Reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria

* Care in focusing attention on the concern at hand

* Persistence though difficulties are encountered

* Precision to the degree permitted by the subject and the circumstance. (Facione, 1990, p. 14)

As a follow-up to the Delphi work, Peter Facione and his colleagues (Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo,

2000) measured and analyzed seven dispositions of critical thinking (Truth-Seeking, Open-Minded,

Analytical, Systematic, Confident in Reasoning, Inquisitive, and Judicious). This work led to the

development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), which measures

personal mental attributes.

The Delphi descriptions outline many qualities that predispose someone to engage in behaviors that

support critical thinking skills. The descriptions also clearly differentiate these dispositions from the

cognitive skills that comprise critical thinking (e.g., analyses, evaluation, and inference). A review of

these dispositional qualities and of the CCTDI led me to look for guidance from the field of personality, a

discipline that has traditionally studied and measured emotional, attitudinal and behavioral response

tendencies.

Personality

A quick review of several major personality models suggests that the dispositions described in the Delphi

Report and in Facione’s subsequent work, can be conceptualized within a personality framework. Thisconceptualization is somewhat different than Facione’s work in that an effort was made to identify

personality trait clusters, and in one case, a values cluster. Drawing on the extant personality literatureanchors the thinking styles in a literature that has clearly established connections between dispositions

and important behavioral outcomes (e.g., specific workplace competencies, workplace performance,

occupational success, adjustment to college, etc.). The personality trait clusters link to each of the seven

thinking styles identified in MTS as follows:

Analytical: The tendencies to notice important details, to anticipate consequences, and to

be logical, methodical, and planful cluster together. For example, in the Six Factor

Personality Questionnaire (Jackson, Paunonen, & Tremblay, 2000) Methodicalness is

identified as a major dimension of personality. In Jungian-based assessments, the

preference for Sensing equates to a preference to gather information in an exact and

precise manner.

Inquisitive: The tendency to be intellectually curious can also be tied to one of the majordimensions of personality, Openness. Although some measure the construct as openness

to experience, others (e.g., Jackson et al., 2000) focus more directly on intellectual

openness. The MTS focuses more on a curiosity and desire to learn.

Insightful: The tendencies to step back reflect, to be steadfast, and prudent are more

squarely in the domain of positive character. For example, Peterson and Seligman (2004)

measure perspective, prudence, and persistence in their Values in Action assessment.




3

Open-Minded: The tendencies to be tolerant of the views of others, empathic, and

fair-minded also coalesce. In the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1996), the

scales of empathy and tolerance are positively correlated with an open-minded approach

to the world and others.

Systematic: The tendency to place things into context and see the bigger picture and its

logical sequence draws from the Jungian construct of Intuition, in which information is

organized through patterns and relationships. This basic Jungian dimension can be

contrasted with its opposite, Sensing, which is the preference for gathering informationthrough the senses in an exact and precise manner. Broadly, the Systematic style is akin

to left brain functions (e.g., conceptual).

Timely: The tendencies to be efficient, reliable, and responsive correlate and can be

found within the major personality dimension of Conscientiousness. Unlike the other six

styles, a Timely style is not clearly described in the Delphi work. However, within the

personality literature, behavioral markers of conscientiousness are among the best

predictors of effective performance. For the My Thinking Styles, the decision was made

to include a scale that represents the ability to proactively move forward and take action

when appropriate. This style was viewed as an important addition that captures behaviors

that support cognitive processes.

Truth-Seeking: This is the tendency to ask tough questions in the pursuit of truth.

Within the personality literature, Truth-Seeking is related conceptually to Independence,

which has been identified as a major dimension of personality (Jackson, et al., 2000;

Gough, 1996). The tendency to distance ones’ self from others and to be competent

enables a person to be frank and push toward the truth, even when pushing causes

interpersonal discomfort.

These seven definitions share commonalities or positive qualities that often coexist to varying degrees

(e.g., the planful and organized aspects of Analytical are related to the reliable and efficient aspects of

Timely). The use of multiple concepts to define each construct also suggests that each scale (i.e., thinking

style) is multifaceted.

Scale Development

Item Writing

In developing My Thinking Styles, each scale was defined and then marker concepts were identified. For

example, for Inquisitive, the marker concepts are curious, inquisitive, and tolerant of ambiguity and

complexity. Items for each scale were based on the respective definitions and marker concepts. The pool

of items for each scale was approximately three times greater than the number anticipated for final

selection. The majority of items were written in the positive direction (i.e., endorsement meant they

possessed the positive behavior). The goal was to create a final form consisting of 10–12 items per scale.

Two item formats were used. One format was a statement of preference (e.g. I like to probe deeply into a

subject) and the other format was a single-word self-descriptor (e.g., Tough-Minded). A four-point item

response rating format was used, ranging from “does not describe me” to “clearly describes me.”

Research staff at Pearson reviewed the item pool and a series of items were deleted or reworded. The

remaining items went through an editorial review and then Short Form was created for the first pilot

study. The Short Form included 70 items (35 statements and 35 self-descriptors) with 10 items per scale.

Only 70 items were tested because the opportunity to collect data could not accommodate the totalnumber of items in the pool. The items selected had a similar level of social desirability across scales.

Thirteen people within Pearson completed The initial version of the Short Form was tested with 13 people




4

from Pearson to identify obvious issues before actual Short Form pilot testing. The Long Form was tested

with a different sample for the second pilot and included 143 items.

Short Form Pilot Study

Purpose

The goal of the short form study was to evaluate the items by looking at scale means and standard

deviations, item distribution (which sheds light on social desirability, as well as item functioning), scale

internal consistency, and preliminary evidence of validity.

Short Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics

The sample consisted of 1,953 participants. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the

sample. Of people who reported demographic information, there were more women than men, more

people who completed at least a college degree than those who did not, and more people working in professional individual contributor or managerial jobs than others.

Table 1 Short Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics (N = 1,953)

Sex n %

Female 951 48.7

Male 547 28.0

Not Reported 455 23.3

Age n %

<17 14 0.7

18–24 150 7.7

25–29 129 6.6

30–39 306 15.7

40–59 720 36.9

>60 144 7.4


Education Level n %9–12 years of high school 138 7.1

1–2 years of college 197 10.1

3–4 years of college 100 5.1

Bachelor’s 469 24.0

Master’s 473 24.2

Doctorate 93 4.8


Occupation n %

Administrative/Clerical 68 3.5

Customer Service/Retail 25 1.3

Professional/Individual Contributor 637 32.6

Manager/Executive 501 25.7

Military 15 0.8

Student 433 22.2

Other 274 14.0




5

Results

The scale ranges, means, standard deviations, and skewness are shown in Table 2. The scales have a

reasonable range and standard deviations, but appear slightly skewed (negatively).

Table 2 Short Form Scale Properties (N = 1,953)

Scale Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness

Analytical 3 30 21.3 4.8 –.503Inquisitive 5 30 22.4 4.2 –.732

Insightful 3 30 21.7 4.1 –.447

Open Minded 3 30 22.9 4.1 –.726

Systematic 3 30 22.2 4.0 –.663

Timely 0 30 20.8 4.9 –.613

Truth Seeking 2 30 17.5 4.3 –.172

There were no significant differences between men and women on the MTS scales. As shown in Table 3,

the comparison between males and females revealed only one small gender difference. Timely was the

only meaningful difference (Cohen’s d effect size was small at .36).

Table 3 Short Form Mean Scores by Gender

Gender Analytical Inquisitive InsightfulOpen

Minded Systematic TimelyTruth

Seeking

Female(n = 951)

21.7 22.3 22.1 23.2 22.2 21.6 17.3

Male(n = 547)

21.1 23.0 21.7 22.7 22.5 19.9 18.1

Effect Size*:Cohen’s d

.12 .17 .10 .12 .08 .36 .18

* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80

Short Form Item Means and Evidence of Internal Consistency Reliability

Item means within each scale were examined for skewness and distribution. Because highly skewed items

typically do not work well (though there are exceptions to that rule), an effort was made to eliminate

items with a mean > 3.0. Item means were reviewed across scales to ensure similar distributions. Because

the assessment is ipsative and enables an individual to compare the relative preference of his or herthinking styles, it is important to match social desirability across scales.

The item means and the evidence of internal consistency reliability for the short pilot form scales are

presented in Table 4. The item means reveal that the Truth Seeking items were not endorsed

as frequently as other scale items. The Internal consistency estimates ranged from .68 to .81, which isgood for a pilot form, but suggests that the scale items would benefit from further review. Item-to-total

score correlations indicated the Truth Seeking scale had several items with low correlations (.24 to .32),

which suggested the Truth Seeking scale needed further work.




6

Table 4 Short Form Item Means and Internal Consistency (N = 1,953)

Scale Mean Alpha

Analytical 2.1 .80

Inquisitive 2.2 .69

Insightful 2.2 .70

Open Minded 2.3 .75

Systematic 2.2 .68

Timely 2.1 .81

Truth Seeking 1.8 .71

Preliminary Evidence of Validity

The literature has consistently shown that occupational and educational attainment is associated with

higher critical thinking capabilities (Watson & Glaser, 2010). The MTS short-form study used three

markers of critical thinking capability: self-rated ability, educational attainment, and occupational

attainment. The mean thinking style scores of self-rated critical thinking capability were compared across

the scales. The results clearly support the hypothesis that people with better self-rated critical thinking

capabilities also score higher on the MTS assessment (Table 5). All differences are moderate to large(i.e., all Cohen’s d effect sizes > .50).

Table 5 Short Form Mean Scores by Self-Rated Critical Thinking

Critical ThinkingSelf Rating Analytical Inquisi tive Insightfu l

Open-Minded Systematic Timely

Truth-Seeking

Below Average(n = 30)

16.0 17.9 17.7 21.7 17.5 16.8 13.4

Average(n = 205)

19.5 20.6 19.8 22.4 20.1 19.4 15.9

Above Average(n = 330)

21.0 21.9 21.2 22.7 21.9 20.3 16.9

A Clear Strength(n = 363)

22.7 23.5 23.2 23.3 23.4 22.42 18.8

ExceptionallyGood(n = 135)

24.5 24.8 24.6 24.0 25.1 23.0 20.4


(Exceptionally Goodvs. Below Average)

1.89 1.81 1.76 .51 2.16 1.28 1.75


People with doctorate degrees were compared with people who had completed a high school degree.

Critical thinking training is often part of advanced education, and as such, it was expected that peoplewith higher educational attainment would have higher thinking style scores. The results, presented in

Table 6, confirm this hypothesis.




7

Table 6 Short Form Mean Scores by Education Level

Education Analytical Inquisitive InsightfulOpen


Seeking

High School(n = 138)

21.3 21.3 20.7 22.9 20.8 20.2 17.1

Doctorate(n = 93)

22.2 25.0 23.2 24.0 24.6 22.3 19.5


.18 .92 .59 .26 .55 .43 .59


The My Thinking Styles mean scores of different occupations were also compared (see Table 7). It was

expected that Manager/Executive and Professional Individual Contributors would score higher than

Administrative Clerical and Customer Service/Retail. No hypotheses were made about students or

military personnel.

Table 7 Short Form Mean Scores by Occupational Groups

Position/Level Analytical Inquisitive InsightfulOpen


Seeking

Administrat ive/Clerical(n = 68)

20.4 20.9 20.2 22.5 20.2 19.8 14.7

CustomerService/Retail(n = 25)

20.0 23.0 20.3 23.3 20.8 19.6 15.2

Professional/IndividualContributor(n = 637)

21.3 22.9 22.0 23.0 22.4 20.7 17.4

Manager/

Executive(n = 501)

21.9 22.8 22.7 23.0 23.5 22.1 18.4

Military(n = 15)

23.3 23.3 22.5 23.9 24.1 23.1 20.3

Student(n = 433)

21.1 21.6 20.8 22.8 21.0 20.1 17.3


(Manager/Executivevs. Administrative/Clerical)

.35 .48 .63 .12 .93 .52 .90





8

Long Form Pilot Study

Purpose

The goal of the long form pilot was to make final item selections and to evaluate the evidence of internal

consistency reliability and construct validity of the scales. The short form study results indicated that

several items needed to be replaced, particularly on the Truth-Seeking scale. It also appeared that the

scales could be enhanced by adding 2–3 items to each scale, which would balance out mean item means

across scales and increase scale internal consistency reliability. To address construct validity, personality

scales conceptually similar to the My Thinking Styles scales were drawn from the InternationalPersonality Item Pool (http://ipip.ori.org/ ). Significant correlations between the scales and conceptually

similar personality constructs would support the theoretical conceptualization of the scales.

Long Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics

The long form sample consisted of 300 participants. Table 8 presents the demographic characteristics.

More women than men were in the sample and the occupations were limited to working professionals.

Age and race/ethnicity was reasonably well distributed.

Table 8 Long Form Pilot Sample Demographic Characteristics (N = 300)

Sex n %

Female 175 58.3

Male 125 41.7

Age n %

18–29 43 14.3

30–45 129 43.0

46–67 127 42.3

Not Reported 1 0.3

Race/Ethnicity

African American/Black 31 10.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 9 3.0

Hispanic/Latina/Latino 19 6.3White 233 77.7

Other 5 1.7

Not Reported 3 1.0

Education Level

High School Diploma or GED 11 3.7

Some College 76 25.3

Associate’s 33 11.0

Bachelor’s 124 41.3

Master’s or Doctorate 55 18.3

Not Reported 1 0.3

Employment Status

Professional/Individual Contributor 162 54.0

Manager 99 33.0

Director 39 13.0

http://ipip.ori.org/

http://ipip.ori.org/




9

Results

The Long Form—143 items—was tested in the second pilot study. Based on the Short Form results, 10

items were deleted (three Truth Seeking scale items) because of low item–total score correlations. The

deleted items were replaced with psychometrically sound items from the second item pool. Three items

were added to each scale, bringing the number of items per scale from 10 to 13.

Similar to the Short Form pilot study, item means were compared to identify highly skewed items and

select items with similar mean levels across scales. The mean and range of the item means are presentedin Tables 9 and 10. Though there are slight differences between scales, the item means generally are

similar and better than in those of the Short Form.

Table 9 My Thi nking St yles Long Form Item Means

Scale Mean

Analytical 2.3

Inquisitive 2.2

Insightful 2.3

Open Minded 2.3

Systematic 2.3

Timely 2.2

Truth Seeking 2.0

Table 10 Range of Long Form Item Means

Scale Range of Item Means

Analytical 1.7–2.5

Inquisitive 1.5–2.5

Insightful 2.1–2.4

Open Minded 1.8–2.5

Systematic 2.0–2.5

Timely 1.7–2.6

Truth Seeking 1.0–2.6

The internal consistency estimates for the revised, final version of the scales are presented in Table 11.

Overall, the internal consistency estimates are very good, ranging from .83 to .90. The addition of three

items to each scale clearly enhanced the internal consistency reliability estimates of each scale.

Table 11 Final Scale Internal Consistency

Scale Internal Consistency (r alpha)

Analytical .85

Inquisitive .87

Insightful .87

Open Minded .85

Systematic .90

Timely .86

Truth Seeking .83




10

My Thinking Style Scale Means and Standard Deviations

After the final items were selected, the scale means and standard deviations were calculated (Table 12).

Table 12 Final Scale Properties (N = 300)

Scale Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness

Analytical 9 39 29.9 5.9 –.585

Inquisitive 9 39 28.8 6.4 –.467

Insightful 12 39 29.7 5.8 –.486

Open Minded 12 39 29.9 5.6 –.395

Systematic 6 39 30.2 6.5 –.745

Timely 2 39 28.8 6.4 –.781

Truth Seeking 7 39 26.2 6.2 –.417

Only small differences were observed between men and women (Table 13) and race/ethnicity (seeTable 14) on the MTS scales.

Table 13 Final Scale Mean Scores by Gender

Gender Analytical Inquisitive InsightfulOpen


Seeking

Female(n = 175)

30.0 28.0 29.4 30.1 29.7 28.9 25.3

Male(n =1 25)

29.8 29.9 30.1 29.6 30.8 28.6 27.4


.03 .31 .14 .08 .18 .04 .34


Table 14 Final Scale Mean Scores by Race/Ethnicity

Race/ Ethnici ty Analytical Inquisit ive Insight fulOpen


Seeking

White(n = 233)

30.1 28.6 29.6 29.5 30.1 28.7 26.0

Other

(n = 64)29.5 29.6 30.0 31.4 30.5 29.2 26.8


.10 .16 .06 .34 .06 .07 .13





11

Evidence of Construct Validity

Conceptually similar constructs (scales) were identified in the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)

for each MTS scale. The MTS scales were mapped to the IPIP is as follows:

My Thinking Styles IPIP

Analytical Methodical, Planful

Inquisitive Inquisitive, Intellectually Open

Insightful Judgment/Open-Minded, Perspective/Wisdom

Open-Minded Empathy, Flexibility

Systematic Resourceful, Intellect, Judgment*

Timely Efficiency, Resourceful

Truth-Seeking Valor/Bravery/Courage**

General Creativity

*Elements of multiple scales are represented in Systematic. No single IPIP construct fullymapped to Systematic.

**Valor/Bravery/Courage should also correlate with the dimension of Insightful that measuressteadfast behavior.

The results in Table 15 provide initial support for the MTS constructs. With the exception of Open

Minded, the scales correlated more highly with the IPIP scales than expected, which was higher than withother scales. The relationships between the IPIP scales and the MTS were generally positive. This was

expected, given that the MTS scales measure positive thinking dispositions and the selected IPIP scales

measure desirable characteristics (e.g., courage, resourcefulness, judgment).

Table 15 Predicted Relationships Between My Thinki ng St yles and IPIP Constructs

My Thinking Styles Scale r IPIP Predicted Cons truct s r IPIP Secondary Cons tructs

Analytical .67 Methodicalness .67 Judgment

.62 Planfulness .65 Resourceful

.64 Efficiency

Inquisitive .73 Inquisitiveness .79 Creativity

.76 Intellectual Openness .70 Intellect

.65 Resourcefulness

Insightful .66 Judgment .68 Resourcefulness

.68 Perspective .61 Valor/Bravery/Courage

Open Minded .49 Empathy .56 Intellectual Openness

.45 Flexibility .52 Perspective/Wisdom

Systematic .71 Resourcefulness

.49 Intellect

.63 Judgment

Timely .75 Efficiency

.72 ResourcefulnessTruth Seeking .66 Valor/Bravery/Courage




12

My Thinking Styles Inter-Scale Correlations

The correlations among the My Thinking Styles scales are presented in Table 16. As expected, the MTS

scales are highly correlated; all represent positive dispositions that support critical thinking.

Table 16 My Thinking Styles Inter-Scale Correlations

Analytical Inquisi tive Insight fu l

Open

Minded Systematic Timely Analytical

Inquisitive .56

Insightful .76 .71

Open Minded .47 .63 .68

Systematic .83 .78 .82 .61

Timely .74 .48 .64 .50 .67

Truth Seeking .54 .67 .66 .44 .68 .50




13

Interpretation

Explaining What My Thinking St yl es Scales Measure

An individual may want to complete the MTS for his or her own self development. In educational and

work settings, teachers or managers may assign the MTS to students or employees for self-development

purposes. In both settings, it is important to stress that the MTS measures behavioral tendencies and that itis in the person’s best interest to think about their actual behavior (as opposed to ideal behavior) when

answering the questions. The purpose is to get a baseline assessment of their actual thinking style preferences.

Interpreting Results

When interpreting MTS results, it is important to keep two principles in mind. First, all seven styles are

positive, so higher scores suggest a greater tendency to engage in a positive thinking style. Currently,

there is no evidence that high scores indicate over use. These styles are positive habits that foster the

development of and the use of critical thinking skills.

Second, the assessment is ipsative, so people should focus on the relative strength of their MTS scale

scores. Their highest scores reflect the styles they use most frequently, and probably, most comfortably.This suggests that these scales are personal strengths. Lower scores on scales reflect the styles they use

less frequently. Because the assessment is ipsative, having a lower scale score (relative to other scales),

does not necessarily equate to an absolute low score. It is simply lower than the individual’s other scores.

When sharing results, it is important to keep the interpretation positive and focused on how the person can

use this information to leverage or improve his or her critical thinking skill development. In situations

where intact teams are reviewing their results as part of a training session, it is sometimes useful to look at

the results from a team perspective. Of course, this can be done only if participants are comfortable and

have given permission to share results. From a team perspective, it is useful to discuss the benefits of

having a number of different styles represented on a team; this diversity creates balance. Similarly, if

everyone has the same low score (e.g., Timely) it suggests that this is not a strength within the team.

Summary

There is psychometric evidence to support the use of My Thinking Style scales in the assessment of

critical thinking skills. This tool will benefit from additional research, most notably correlations with

critical thinking skills as rated by knowledge observers (rather than self-reported).

The use and interpretation of the MTS is solely for self-development. It was not designed for selection or

diagnostic purposes. The results are intended to provide people with insight to the relative frequency with

which they engage in behaviors that support good critical thinking and to help them develop better criticalthinking skills.




14

References

Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of

educational assessment and instruction. Newark, DE: American Philosophical

Association.

Facione, P. A., Facione N. C., & Giancarlo, C (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking:Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skills. Journal of

Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.

Gough, H. G. (1996). California psychological inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: CPP.

International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of

Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences(http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.

Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., & Tremblay, P. F. (2000). Six Factor Personality

Questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc.

Peterson C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and

classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2010). Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal technical

manual and user's guide. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press

My Thinking Styles Technical Report

Documents

Transcript of My Thinking Styles Technical Report