ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Development and psychometric properties of the critical thinking attitude scale in Italian college students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Strategic Prompting Scale (SPS) for Measuring Metacognitive Regulation in Human-AI Interaction.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- The association between personal interest and critical thinking: a comparison between a universal (death penalty) and a local (Strait of Messina Bridge) debate.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cultivation mechanism of college students' ethical judgment in the post-truth era: a dual-dimensional model based on critical thinking and emotional education.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Critical thinking (CT) is a higher-order cognitive skill essential for academic and professional success, combining the ability to evaluate evidence with a reflective and analytical attitude toward information. Although several tools exist to measure critical thinking disposition, many show limitations in length, reliability, or generalizability, often focusing on specific populations such as medical and nursing students. This study addresses this gap by developing and validating the Critical Thinking Attitude Scale (CTAS) for Italian university students. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases. In Study 1, 211 participants completed the CTAS questionnaire; exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure: systematicity, search for truth and openness, analyticity, and inquisitiveness, with high internal consistency (α > 0.78). In Study 2, involving 577 participants, the four-factor model was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis, showing excellent reliability (α = 0.93) and significant correlations with the Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) and the Italian Big Five Inventory (BFI-10), supporting convergent validity, while negative correlations with the Dysfunctional Beliefs Questionnaire (DBQ) highlighted divergent validity. Results: Exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a robust four-factor structure of the CTAS, demonstrating excellent internal consistency and reliability. Convergent validity was confirmed through positive correlations with CRA and BFI-10, whereas divergent validity was supported by negative correlations with DBQ. Discussion: This study fills an instrument gap by providing the first Italian adaptation of the CTAS, offering a psychometrically robust and culturally appropriate tool for assessing attitudes toward critical thinking across disciplines. The findings provide a foundation for targeted educational interventions and future research aimed at fostering reflective and analytical thinking in higher education, contributing a standardized, valid, and broadly applicable measure.
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.