ReviewJournal of Intelligence2025
Determining Factors for the Development of Critical Thinking in Higher Education.
Review in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. 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.
- Turn-Key Protocols for Food Safety Culture Improvement: A Narrative on Theory and Best Practice.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The role of the 2023 earthquakes in the competencies and critical thinking skills of teacher candidates in Türkiye.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Perceptions and motivations toward critical thinking among health science students in northern Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From strain to estrangement: the role of personality in predicting parent-child relational outcomes.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The relationship between teachers' critical thinking, experiences of victimization in educational institutions, and psychological well-being.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Computational thinking and academic imposter syndrome: a serial mediation model of creative and critical thinking.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study arises from the growing need to train professionals capable of confronting and analyzing the overabundance of information in an increasingly complex world, where critical thinking is seen as an indispensable skill for informed decision making and problem solving. To this end, a systematic narrative review methodology was applied to the scientific literature, compiling data from various international databases. The results reveal that physiological factors (memory, attention, nutrition and physical activity), psychological factors (cognitive biases, fear of ambiguity, and metacognition), sociocultural factors (diversity, inequality, and cultural norms), technological factors (digitalization, use of AI, and digital literacy), and educational factors (active pedagogical strategies and collaborative work) play a determining role in the development of critical thinking in higher education. The discussion emphasizes the complex interaction between these factors and underscores the need for holistic approaches that strengthen both cognitive competencies and emotional well-being. In conclusion, we recommend designing comprehensive training interventions that consider the identified factors, promoting inclusive and reflective environments, aimed at developing critical, autonomous graduates capable of facing contemporary challenges.
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.