ArticleBMC psychology2025
The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Community Readiness Instrument: A Quantitative Measurement Using Statistical Best Practices to Assess Systemic Change Readiness.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBuilding on Hacking's historical-philosophical notion of "styles of reasoning" and subsequent three-axis formalisation (Disposition, Perception, Organization), this study develops and validates the Eight-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale (8-FRSS). The instrument operationalises eight theoretically predicted styles that arise from the orthogonal intersections Empirical ↔ Hypothetical, Metaphorical ↔ Analogical, and Inductive ↔ Deductive.
methodsItems (5 per style; 40 total) were generated from the Reasoning Style Model, vetted by five measurement experts, and refined through a pilot face-validity study (n = 50). A sequential mixed-methods design followed: (1) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA; n = 441); (2) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA-1; n = 316) with DWLS on polychoric correlations; (3) cross-validation CFA-2 on an independent community sample (n = 604). Reliability (α, ω) and composite reliability/AVE were computed, and concurrent validity was assessed against the Turkish adaptation of the Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI-TR; 13 subscales).
resultsThe EFA revealed the theorised eight-factor solution after removal of two items, explaining 58.2% of variance (KMO = 0.932; Bartlett p < .001). CFA-1 showed excellent fit (χ²/df = 1.77, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.047) after minor item pruning; CFA-2 replicated adequate fit in the broader sample (CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.877, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.048). Six subscales met reliability standards (ω/0.70-0.77); two (Hypothetical-Deductive, Empirical-Inductive) showed marginal values (ω = 0.48-0.69), earmarked for revision. Total-scale reliability was high (ω = 0.93; α = 0.91). Convergent evidence came from significant positive correlations with conceptually matched TSI-TR subscales, strongest for Analogical styles with legislative/executive/judicial thinking (r ≈ .51-0.61, p < .01).
conclusionsThe 8-FRSS provides the first psychometrically robust measure that simultaneously captures empirical-hypothetical orientation, metaphorical-analogical framing, and inductive-deductive organisation. Its factorial stability across student and community samples, coupled with satisfactory reliability and demonstrable concurrent validity, supports its use in educational, cognitive, and decision-science research. Future work should refine lower-reliability factors, test longitudinal invariance, and explore predictive links to learning outcomes and susceptibility to misinformation.
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.