My Thinking Styles
TM
TECHNICAL REPORT
by Judy Chartrand
Copyright © 2011 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
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 his
or 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 and
dispositions 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, openminded, 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
1
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
* 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. This
conceptualization 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 literature
anchors 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 major
dimensions 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.
2
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 information
through 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 total
number 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
3
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
Female
n
%
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
Not Reported
490
25.1
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
Not Reported
483
24.7
Education Level
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
4
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
–.503
Inquisitive
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
Analytical
Inquisitive
Insightful
Open
Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth
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
Gender
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 her
thinking 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 is
good 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.
5
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 Thinking
Self Rating
Analytical
Inquisitive
Insightful
OpenMinded
Systematic
Timely
TruthSeeking
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
Exceptionally
Good
(n = 135)
24.5
24.8
24.6
24.0
25.1
23.0
20.4
1.89
1.81
1.76
.51
2.16
1.28
1.75
Effect Size*:
Cohen’s d
(Exceptionally Good
vs. Below Average)
* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80
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 people
with higher educational attainment would have higher thinking style scores. The results, presented in
Table 6, confirm this hypothesis.
6
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
Table 6 Short Form Mean Scores by Education Level
Analytical
Inquisitive
Insightful
Open
Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth
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
Effect Size*:
Cohen’s d
.18
.92
.59
.26
.55
.43
.59
Education
* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80
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
Insightful
Open
Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth
Seeking
Administrative/
Clerical
(n = 68)
20.4
20.9
20.2
22.5
20.2
19.8
14.7
Customer
Service/Retail
(n = 25)
20.0
23.0
20.3
23.3
20.8
19.6
15.2
Professional/
Individual
Contributor
(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
.35
.48
.63
.12
.93
.52
.90
Effect Size*:
Cohen’s d
(Manager/Executive
vs. Administrative/
Clerical)
* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80
7
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 International
Personality 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
1
0.3
31
10.3
Not Reported
Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
9
3.0
Hispanic/Latina/Latino
19
6.3
White
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
162
54.0
Employment Status
Professional/Individual Contributor
Manager
99
33.0
Director
39
13.0
8
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 presented
in 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 Thinking Styles 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 (ralpha)
Analytical
.85
Inquisitive
.87
Insightful
.87
Open Minded
.85
Systematic
.90
Timely
.86
Truth Seeking
.83
9
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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 (see
Table 14) on the MTS scales.
Table 13 Final Scale Mean Scores by Gender
Gender
Analytical
Inquisitive
Open
Minded
Insightful
Systematic
Truth
Seeking
Timely
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
Effect Size*:
Cohen’s d
* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80
Table 14 Final Scale Mean Scores by Race/Ethnicity
Race/ Ethnicity
Analytical
Inquisitive
Insightful
Open
Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth
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
Effect Size*:
Cohen’s d
* Small Effect Size = .30; Moderate Effect Size = .50; Large Effect Size = .80
10
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
Inquisitive
Insightful
Open-Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth-Seeking
General
Methodical, Planful
Inquisitive, Intellectually Open
Judgment/Open-Minded, Perspective/Wisdom
Empathy, Flexibility
Resourceful, Intellect, Judgment*
Efficiency, Resourceful
Valor/Bravery/Courage**
Creativity
*Elements of multiple scales are represented in Systematic. No single IPIP construct fully
mapped to Systematic.
**Valor/Bravery/Courage should also correlate with the dimension of Insightful that measures
steadfast 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 with
other 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 Thinking Styles and IPIP Constructs
My Thinking Styles Scale
Analytical
Inquisitive
Insightful
Open Minded
Systematic
Timely
Truth Seeking
r
IPIP Predicted Constructs
r
IPIP Secondary Constructs
.67
Methodicalness
.67
Judgment
.62
Planfulness
.65
Resourceful
.64
Efficiency
.73
Inquisitiveness
.79
Creativity
.76
Intellectual Openness
.70
Intellect
.65
Resourcefulness
.66
Judgment
.68
Resourcefulness
.68
Perspective
.61
Valor/Bravery/Courage
.49
Empathy
.56
Intellectual Openness
.45
Flexibility
.52
Perspective/Wisdom
.71
Resourcefulness
.49
Intellect
.63
Judgment
.75
Efficiency
.72
Resourcefulness
.66
Valor/Bravery/Courage
11
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
Inquisitive
Insightful
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
12
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
.50
Interpretation
Explaining What My Thinking Styles 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 it
is 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 critical
thinking skills.
13
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
14
Copyright © 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.