Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 5, Number 1, Spring / Summer 2020 | Page 110

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
expected to climb to 88% over the next
few years” (Chamorro-Premuzic 2015).
There are numerous online critical
thinking tests available from no cost to
over $75.00 per test that claim to provide
critical thinking assessment. Additionally,
some companies provide profile
reports that compile the results into
specific categories of recognizing assumptions,
evaluating arguments, and
drawing conclusions. Most tests purport
to determine a person’s ability to
reason through an argument logically
and make an objective decision. Some
tests claim to measure a person’s ability
to assess a situation, recognize assumptions,
create a hypothesis, and evaluate
arguments. Additionally, some tests assert
to be able to test a person’s ability
to distinguish between strong and weak
arguments. For example, if an argument
is strong it must be directly related to
the question and if it is weak it confuses
correlation with causation. Deduction
questions have test-takers draw conclusions
based on the information given
in a case study. Interpretive questions
ask test-takers to regard the information
presented and determine if a conclusion
is true and logically follows the
information presented. Inferences can
also be measured to determine how
well a test-taker can draw conclusions
from the observed facts.
Evaluating available critical
thinking tests, determining if the tests
actually measure critical thinking and
then deciding if the tests encapsulate
the IA skillset is a formative task. Three
reviewers, which included this author,
an educator, and a college Coordinator
of Assessment and Transfer Degrees,
reviewed ICDs 610 and 210, studied
critical thinking definitions, investigated
academic assessments of how critical
thinking is taught at the secondary and
college level, and finalized a spreadsheet
with a list of eleven possible tests out of
twenty tests reviewed that seemed to
best measure critical thinking skills in
concordance with IDCs 610 and 203.
Reviewers then evaluated those tests
based on cost and content. Using these
criteria, reviewers determined that
three tests were the best options for final
evaluation.
From mid-February through
mid-March 2019, three critical thinking
tests were taken by the author, the
educator, and the coordinator of assessment;
each reviewer evaluated the
strengths and weaknesses of the test
based on the goals of ICDs 610 and 203
for IA competencies. See Appendix A
for a detailed review of these three tests’
strengths and weaknesses (Marangione
and Long 2019).
All evaluators agreed that the
tests provide a measurement of competency
on a basic level. They measure if a
person is low, moderate, or high in applying
critical thinking for analysis and
decision-making. Subscale interpretations
test whether a person can read between
the lines, and explore and measure
the awareness of some cognitive
biases. Additionally, test results provided
whether a person can assimilate and
evaluate information into conclusions,
take into account alternate points of
view, and evaluate arguments based on
the strength of evidence. Figure 7 provides
an illustration of the reviewer's
final assessment.
96