ArticleBMC medical education2021
Psychometric properties of the critical thinking disposition assessment test amongst medical students in China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and psychometric properties of the critical thinking attitude scale in Italian college students.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Perception of the Level of Competency of Candidates for Graduation: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Complex Thinking.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Evaluating and comparing critical thinking skills of residents of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Complex thinking and social entrepreneurship. An approach from the methodology of compositional data analysis.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Factors associated with the critical thinking ability of professional nurses: A cross-sectional study.Nursing open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCritical thinking disposition helps medical students and professionals overcome the effects of personal values and beliefs when exercising clinical judgment. The lack of effective instruments to measure critical thinking disposition in medical students has become an obstacle for training and evaluating students in undergraduate programs in China. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the CTDA test.
methodsA total of 278 students participated in this study and responded to the CTDA test. Cronbach's α coefficient, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor effects and ceiling effects were measured to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. Construct validity of the pre-specified three-domain structure of the CTDA was evaluated by explanatory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The convergent validity and discriminant validity were also analyzed.
resultsCronbach's alpha coefficient for the entire questionnaire was calculated to be 0.92, all of the domains showed acceptable internal consistency (0.81-0.86), and the test-retest reliability indicated acceptable intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) (0.93, p < 0.01). The EFA and the CFA demonstrated that the three-domain model fitted the data adequately. The test showed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.
conclusionsThe CTDA is a reliable and valid questionnaire to evaluate the disposition of medical students towards critical thinking in China and can reasonably be applied in critical thinking programs and medical education research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.