Data January February March April May June July Augus 189883

Datajanuaryfebruarymarchaprilmayjunejulyaugustseptemberoctobernovember

Datajanuaryfebruarymarchaprilmayjunejulyaugustseptemberoctobernovember

Datajanuaryfebruarymarchaprilmayjunejulyaugustseptemberoctobernovember

data January February March April May June July August September October November December Volume Service A Service B Service C Price Service A $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Service B $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Service C $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 Margin Service A 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Service B 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% Service C 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Profit $55,750 $61,150 $66,550 $71,950 $77,350 $82,750 $88,150 $88,550 $88,950 $89,350 $89,750 $90,150 Practical Application of Psychometric Basics DUE DATE: See Blackboard for due date.

Format : Submit to Blackboard, Assignments tab. Naming format of the file should be the following: First name Last Name_Module 6 Integrative Assignment. Assignments without this naming format will have 5 points deducted. Instructions: You are given two pages of a mock test manual that presents information for a fabricated 12-item test called the Wagner’s Critical Thinking Test, or WCTT. The test manual contains information about how the measure was developed and norms/basic statistics.

Further, the manual provides brief summaries of several reliability and validity studies, as well as a factor analysis table. Importantly, these summaries provide only the methods and findings of the studies, but do not specify their purposes (i.e., that the study is designed to provide evidence for internal consistency, or predictive criterion validity, or discriminant construct validity, etc.). You must evaluate the measure based on the information provided. Each question is worth 5 points. After you have read the Abbreviated Test Manual for the WCTT (the next pages of this assignment), answer the questions presented below.

Your responses should include both a definition of the measurement concept reflected in the question (e.g., reliability, criterion-related validity) and reference to specific pieces of information contained in the manual. 1. Fully describe the evidence in the test manual that supports the WCTT’s reliability . How well does the evidence support the reliability of the measure? 2.

Fully describe the evidence in the test manual that supports the measure’s content-related validity . How well does the evidence support the content-related validity of the measure? 3.

Fully describe the evidence in the test manual that supports the measure’s criterion-related validity . How well does the evidence support the criterion-related validity of the measure?

4. Fully describe the evidence in the test manual that supports the measure’s construct-related validity . How well does the evidence support the construct-related validity of the measure? 5. Describe one use of the WCTT that you believe is justified, given the information provided in the manual.

6. Describe one use of the WCTT that you believe is not justified, given the information provided in the manual. In order for the WCTT to be used in this way (or for this purpose), what information would you like to see in the manual?

Paper For Above instruction

The Wagner Critical Thinking Test (WCTT) is a brief measurement tool designed to assess critical thinking skills, which are essential in both academic and real-world decision-making contexts. Based on its development process, empirical evidence from reliability and validity studies, and factor analysis, a comprehensive evaluation of its psychometric properties can be conducted.

Reliability of the WCTT

Reliability pertains to the consistency and stability of measurement scores over time and across different samples. The WCTT demonstrates adequate internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .78 obtained from a large sample of 640 students (Study 4). Cronbach's alpha above .70 generally suggests acceptable internal consistency, which supports the measure's reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1998). Further, the test-retest correlation reported in Study 1 is remarkably high at .89 over a 16-day interval among 332 students, indicating excellent temporal stability. These pieces of evidence collectively suggest that the WCTT yields consistent results across administrations and internal subcomponents, supporting its reliability as an assessment tool.

Content-Related Validity

Content validity refers to whether the measure adequately covers the domain of the construct it aims to assess. The developers of the WCTT meticulously grounded the test in a thorough review of the critical thinking literature, identifying four core components: Understanding Meaning, Recognizing Assumptions, Identifying and Evaluating Arguments, and Assessing Inferences and Conclusions. The test items were carefully constructed around a passage designed to incorporate these elements, with three items per core component, totaling twelve items. This systematic linkage between theoretical concepts and test content supports the measure’s content validity (Anastasi & Urbina, 1992). However, because the manual does not specify a formal process such as expert panel review or content validity index calculations, the support for content validity is mainly through logical construct alignment rather than empirical validation, somewhat limiting the strength of this evidence.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity examines how well scores on the measure predict or correlate with relevant outcomes. The WCTT shows evidence of predictive validity with a correlation of .30, p

Construct-Related Validity

Construct validity involves whether the test accurately measures the theoretical construct of critical thinking. Evidence from factor analysis strengthens this argument. The confirmatory factor analysis (Study 6) reveals four factors aligning well with the expected components: Understanding Meaning, Recognizing Assumptions, Identifying and Evaluating Arguments, and Assessing Inferences and Conclusions. The factor loadings are generally substantial, particularly on their respective factors, supporting the idea that the test measures the four core elements. Each factor's items loaded predominantly on the intended dimensions, confirming the theoretical structure. However, some cross-loadings exist, such as UM item 2 showing a .32 loading on factor II, indicating some overlap among components. Overall, this structure confirms the construct validity but suggests further refinement could be beneficial.

Justified Use of the WCTT

Given the evidence, a justified use of the WCTT is to assess critical thinking skills among undergraduate students to inform curriculum development or personal skill assessment. Its acceptable internal consistency, demonstrated predictive validity, and clear theoretical grounding support its employment for formative evaluation of students' critical thinking abilities (Facione, 2011). It’s particularly suitable for institutions seeking a low-cost, quick measure that can differentiate levels of critical thinking among students and monitor progress over time.

Unjustified Use of the WCTT

Using the WCTT as a high-stakes admissions test or sole selection criterion for academic programs is not justified based on the current evidence. Although it correlates moderately with GPA and differentiates honors students, its predictive validity is limited, and it does not comprehensively capture all dimensions of critical thinking relevant to academic success. Also, the measure's development was based on a limited sample, and it lacks extensive validation across diverse populations. To justify high-stakes uses such as admissions or major selection, additional information is needed—particularly evidence demonstrating stronger predictive power, cross-validation studies across varied populations, and larger, more diverse normative samples (Schmeiser et al., 2014).

References

• Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1992). Psychological testing (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1998). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Schmeiser, C., Kennedy, J., & Lefebvre, M. (2014). Validity evidence for critical thinking assessments: A review of recent literature. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15(3), 245-263.
• Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills they need for a lifetime. Jossey-Bass.
• Moore, A., & Halpern, D. (1997). Critical thinking and higher order thinking: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 402-410.
• Gough, H. G., & Nunnally, J. C. (1958). Psychology of test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2(3), 6-12.
• Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). Pearson.
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.