WG-CTA

100 years of critical thinking appraisal

In 1925, Godwin Barbour Watson published “The Measurement of Fairmindedness” (see last section of this page for more details). He was the first psychometrician to realize that careful, analytical reasoning is an important part of most management roles and is known to play an important part in many occupations. It was republished as the Watson Glaser with co-author Edward Maynard Glaser in the 1940s, although Glaser’s exact contribution is not clear.  The WG-CTA has been designed to measure some of these important abilities and provides an invaluable assessment strategy for professional HR recruitment specialists involved in the selection and training of managerial and other professional staff. The norms from the 1546 UK standardisatiion sample are used to transform the WG-CTA raw scores into T-scores (mean of 50, standard deviation of 10). These T-scores should be used as the common metric in assessing all scores on the both Watson-Glaser and RANRA and on the combined test. Thus, enabling assessors to compare candidates within and across roles.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. It involves questioning assumptions, discerning hidden values, evaluating evidence, and assessing conclusions. In essence, critical thinking is about being both willing and able to think critically.

History of the Watson-Glaser Test

Since the 1940s, the test has undergone several revisions to improve its reliability and validity, with the version standardized for the UK market being tailored to reflect the specific cultural and educational contexts of the UK. This standardization process ensured that the test’s norms were relevant and accurate for the UK population, making it a valuable tool for assessing critical thinking in a UK context.

Assessment Areas of the Watson-Glaser

The Watson-Glaser test is structured around five key areas of critical thinking:

1. Inference: The ability to draw conclusions from observed or supposed facts.
2. Recognition of Assumptions: Identifying unstated assumptions or presuppositions in statements or arguments.
3. Deduction: The process of deducing conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
4. Interpretation: Evaluating statements in terms of whether they follow from given information.
5. Evaluation of Arguments: Assessing whether certain conclusions logically follow from the information given in statements or arguments.

These areas are designed to collectively assess an individual’s critical thinking capabilities, providing insights into their ability to think clearly, rationally, and independently.

How the Test Is Used

The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is used in a variety of contexts, including recruitment in the legal profession, higher education, and professional development. In the workplace, it’s often employed to identify candidates with strong problem-solving and decision-making skills, particularly for roles requiring complex analysis or strategic thinking. In educational settings, the test can help identify students’ strengths and areas for improvement in critical thinking, informing teaching strategies and curriculum development.

The original Measurement of Fair-mindedness

Below is an early review by Homer Rainer in Educational Writings 1926, p 233-235 of “The Measurement of Fair-Mindedness” by Goodwin B. Watson that appeared in Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 176. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925.

“A test of fair-mindedness. Most people have prejudices, mental sets, and predetermined attitudes, and all experience teaches how powerful these are in the control of human conduct. Most individuals can be classified with respect to their prejudices in certain fields. Men are conservative, progressive, or radical in politics and are fundamentalists or modernists with respect to religion. Much of the instruction which men receive is of such a character as to produce clearly defined types of social, political, and religious attitudes. “The worst thing about stubbornness of mind, about prejudices,” says John Dewey, “is that they arrest development; they shut the mind off from new stimuli.” This has an important meaning for modern education. If men are arrested in their mental development because of the building up of prejudices or mental attitudes, steps should be taken to prevent such conditions. Before starting a program of prevention, however, analysis is necessary. The method of opinion has been the rule. Men have been arbitrarily judged “narrow-minded” or “fair-minded.” The author of a recent publication’ has devised a test to measure the degree of one’s fair-mindedness.

That there is need for such a test is shown by the author in the first chapter. He presents a series of quotations from prominent individuals in all phases of human activity emphasizing the need for “open-” or “fair-mindedness.” “Openmindedness” is the essence of the scientific mind and is indispensable to all scientific investigation. Some ask, “Why attempt to get a measure of the degree of one’s open-mindedness?” The author answers this question in the following terms: “Before we can decide whether this course or that, whether lecturing or discussion, whether accusation or persuasion will be more effective in the creation of fair-mindedness, one must have first some method of telling in how great a degree this quality of mind is present before and after the application of these devices” (p. 5).

Numerous efforts have been made at character rating, and all the evidence from these studies, although not entirely conclusive, seems to make it clear that such ratings are not dependable. What is needed in this field, contends the author, is a test the validity and the reliability of which have already been established. It was his purpose to construct such a test. No attempt has been made “to insist that fair-mindedness rather than prejudice is desirable,” says the author (p. 7). The very opposite may be desirable in many instances. A test of fair-mindedness should be useful from either point of view.

The subject matter on which this test is constructed is limited to the fields of economic and religious issues, including in the latter certain “moral” or “amusement” questions which have become tied up with religious sanctions. “The desire of these two types of issue as the field in which to work was determined in part by the author’s interest but in a large degree by a realization of the tremendous consequences of prejudice and intolerance, as contrasted with fair-open-scientific-mindedness in these realms” (p. 7).

The author used six forms of tests. Form A, the cross-out word test, is based on the principle employed by Pressey in his emotional test. Form B, the degree-of-truth test, consists of a collection of statements about religious and economic matters, on each of which it would be possible to find sincere and competent authorities in disagreement. Form C is an inference test, which presents a series of factual statements followed by several conclusions which might be drawn from the facts. Form D is a moral-judgments test, which consists of fifteen instances with an opportunity in each case to approve the act, to declare it a matter of indifference, or to disapprove it. Form E is an arguments test, based on the tendency of an individual to feel that all the arguments on his side of the case are strong while those on the opposite side are weak, irrelevant, or very easily refuted. Form F, a generalization test, contains a number of generalizations about Jews, ministers, I.W.W.’s, etc. Each generalization is true of some of the members of the group but not of all the members. The subject is given a chance to pass on the truth of the generalizations.

Two scores are desired from the test. The first is to find the general level of prejudice within the individual or the group. This score is based on a total of 489 possible points and is expressed in percentage. The second score is analytical, the purpose being to find the particular lines along which an individual is prejudiced and the strength of the prejudice in each of the lines. This score is presented for an individual on a prejudice profile.

In determining the reliability of the test, the author correlated results from one-half of the test with results from the other half. The correlations range from .6o to .88. Their validity is also maintained by the author. His conclusion as to what the tests really measure is “that unless conflicting evidence should be obtained, these tests may be regarded as usable measures of prejudice, as contrasted with fair-mindedness, upon certain religious and economic issues” (p. 3 ).

If it is assumed that a test of fair-mindedness has been constructed, the question which naturally arises is, “What can it be used for?” The reviewer confesses a lack of optimism on this point, especially with reference to the degree of prejudice among a group. In suggesting uses of this test, the author says: “Imagine a politician who is called upon to make an address before an audience of considerable importance. …. What would it be worth to him to know, in advance, the direction and degree of prejudice? …. Consider a minister entering upon a new pastorate, having dealings with a new group of officials and young people . … how many disastrous steps might be avoided, were it only practicable to administer such a test to his constituency and forewarn himself as to the prejudices which he may expect to encounter?” (P. 36.) It requires considerable stretch of the imagination to believe that either of these suggestions could be followed. It is hardly conceivable that a political or religious gathering could be tested and the results summarized before the speaker is presented. More practical suggestions are made, such as testing the effectiveness of various teaching methods and recording the shifts of opinion in certain conferences between the beginning and the end. It is the reviewer’s opinion that the greatest and the best results will come from diagnostic testing of individuals rather than groups.

Since this is the first effort to test fair-mindedness, it is evident that it cannot meet all the problems in this field of experimentation. The author of this test, however, has made a valuable and suggestive beginning.”

Conclusion

The enduring relevance of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal lies in its robust, standardized measure of critical thinking, a skill increasingly recognized as vital in navigating the complexities of the modern world. By providing a structured framework for assessing critical thinking, the Watson-Glaser test helps organizations and educational institutions identify and develop individuals capable of thoughtful analysis, effective decision-making, and innovative problem-solving. As we continue to confront new challenges and information at an unprecedented rate, the ability to think critically remains an invaluable asset, making tools like the Watson-Glaser as relevant today as they have always been.