The assessment of critical thinking attitude in university students has significant implications for their academic and professional development (Sk and Halder, 2024). In healthcare and other fields, critical thinking is essential for making informed decisions based on complex data (Hwang et al., 2023; İlaslan et al., 2023). Despite the predominant focus on evaluating this competence among nursing and medical students, it is crucial to recognize the importance of critical thinking in other fields of knowledge as well. In the field of economics, critical thinking is essential for understanding and analyzing complex economic phenomena, developing theoretical models, and applying them to practical realities (Anum and Olumuyiwa, 2024). Economics students must be able to critically evaluate fiscal and monetary policies, analyze statistical data, and comprehend market dynamics (Azzaakiyyah et al., 2023). This competence is crucial for formulating accurate economic forecasts, making informed decisions, and solving complex economic problems. In the social sciences, critical thinking skills are fundamental for evaluating sociological theories, analyzing statistical data, and understanding social phenomena through rigorous methodological approaches (Vincent-Lancrin, 2023). In psychology, critical thinking is essential for interpreting experimental research, applying theoretical concepts to practical situations, and developing evidence-based interventions (Silva et al., 2023). The humanities disciplines, such as philosophy and literature, require students to exercise critical thinking in analyzing complex texts, developing coherent arguments, and reflecting on ethical and moral issues (Baddane and Ennam, 2024). These skills are fundamental in shaping individuals capable of addressing intellectual and social challenges in a reflective and articulate manner. Critical thinking also plays a central role in the natural sciences and engineering disciplines (Cossu et al., 2024). Students must be able to design and conduct experiments, interpret scientific results, and solve technical problems with creativity and analytical rigor. The ability to critically evaluate their own hypotheses and results is essential for the advancement of scientific and technological knowledge (Karaer et al., 2024). Therefore, it is useful to develop and implement critical thinking assessment tools that are applicable across all academic disciplines.

Several tools have been used to assess critical thinking (CT), but as highlighted by Quinn et al. (2020), few have specifically measured the construct of critical thinking attitude. Measuring CT attitude can be crucial in identifying targeted goals to promote CT skills through focused educational programs.

One well-known and widely used tool is the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), developed by Facione et al. (1994) based on the consensus statement from the Delphi study on the critical thinker profile. Designed to assess CT disposition in the general adult population across various contexts, the CCTDI consists of 75 items divided into seven subscales: truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, curiosity, self-confidence, and maturity. Specifically, truth-seeking reflects an individual’s aspiration to pursue accurate and in-depth knowledge in every field. Open-mindedness is manifested through tolerance for diverse perspectives and awareness of one’s own biases. Analyticity implies reasoning based on concrete evidence and the ability to tackle conceptual or practical challenges. Systematicity implies an organized, focused, and diligent approach to inquiry. Curiosity is the intrinsic desire to explore and learn. Self-confidence pertains to assurance and belief in one’s own reasoning processes. Lastly, maturity is associated with the ability to make wise decisions. Over time, the tool has undergone various revisions and has been translated into many languages (Bravo et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023). Despite its extensive use within the scientific community, the literature has highlighted uncertainties regarding the consistency of preliminary results regarding the reliability and validity of its original version. Although the overall reliability of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) may be acceptable in its original form, the reported Cronbach’s alpha values for the initial pilot testing of the seven CCTDI scales are moderate, ranging from 0.71 to 0.80; however, those of the subscales appear relatively low. Other research conducted on the CCTDI has reported variable results. For example, in Chinese students, lower alpha coefficients ranging from 0.59 to 0.75 have been observed (Zhang, 2003). In the case of Taiwanese and North American students, Yeh (2002) reported alpha values ranging from 0.34 to 0.73 in the Chinese version and values ranging from 0.52 to 0.73 in the English version, with an overall alpha of 0.71 in both cases. Additionally, factorial analyses from various studies have suggested modifications in dimension combinations and a reduction in the number of items in many of these studies.

Therefore, partial versions of the CCTDI have been developed, which in some cases have demonstrated greater reliability compared to the original scale. Some eliminated items may not have effectively measured due to participant fatigue, suggesting that the length of the original scale could represent a burdensome task for subjects (Bowling et al., 2022). Hwang et al. (2010) and Wang et al. (2019) addressed this issue by reducing the number of items from 75 to 18 through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A shorter scale encourages participants to complete the survey and pay more attention to each question, facilitating more thoughtful and accurate responses (Hwang et al., 2010). However, such scales have been primarily used in specific contexts, focusing on populations such as physicians and nurses (Huang and Chang, 2023). Few studies have assessed critical thinking attitudes in college students. Sosu (2013) developed the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale, a 2-factor, 11-item tool, which measures two fundamental dispositions of CT: critical openness and reflective scepticism. Although research is limited, initial assessments suggest that the scale has good internal consistency and convergent validity (Yockey, 2016). However, Sosu’s (2013) sample involved college students and graduates enrolled in a program (specifically education), which could potentially influence the nature of the responses. Recently, Quinn et al. (2020) developed Student-Educator Negotiated Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (SENCTDS), a tool composed of 21 items, measuring six dispositions: reflection, attention, open-mindedness, organization, perseverance, and intrinsic goal motivation. Despite the evaluation on a not very large sample, it has shown good validity and reliability. Stupple et al. (2017) developed the Critical Thinking Toolkit (CriTT): a measure of students’ attitudes and beliefs regarding critical thinking, based on three latent factors identified through a reduced set of 27 items. These factors were characterized as: confidence in critical thinking; valuing critical thinking; and misconceptions. Reliability analysis confirmed that the subscales were reliable. Additionally, convergent validity was demonstrated with measures of grade point average and argumentation ability. The CTAS (Critical Thinking Attitude Scale) initially developed by Akar and Kara (2020) to assess students’ critical thinking attitudes, consists of 20 items and includes seven dimensions (open-mindedness, problem-solving, fatalism, paranormal beliefs, dogmatism, conservatism, and discussion). Correlations between the subscales of the scale and the total score ranged from 0.43 to 0.67.

In summary, the CCTDI is a widely used tool, but doubts have been raised about its validity and reliability. Reduced partial versions, such as those by Hwang et al. (2010) and Wang et al. (2019), have shown increased reliability but have been mainly used in specific contexts such as the medical field. Other instruments, such as Sosu’s Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (Sosu, 2013) and Quinn et al.’s SENCTDS (Quinn et al., 2020), focus on specific aspects of critical thinking, with promising but limited results. Alternatives for assessment include Stupple et al.'s (2017) CriTT and Akar and Kara (2020) CTAS scale. The process of developing a test suitable for the population of Italian university students requires formulating clear and understandable questions, reducing the test to eliminate duplications, and refining scale items to ensure accurate measurement of individual propensity toward critical thinking.

Existing measures of critical thinking attitude present notable limitations. The CCTDI, while widely used, is often criticized for its excessive length, which can lead to participant fatigue, reduced attention, and potential biases in responses (Bowling et al., 2022). Shortened versions of the CCTDI (Hwang et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2019) have improved reliability, yet their validation has been largely confined to medical and nursing students, thus limiting generalizability to broader academic contexts. Other instruments, such as Sosu’s (2013) Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale and Quinn et al.’s SENCTDS (Quinn et al., 2020), show promising psychometric properties, but they have been tested on relatively small or discipline-specific samples. Overall, these limitations highlight the need for instruments that are both psychometrically sound and broadly applicable across different academic domains.

The present study addresses this gap by providing the first Italian adaptation and validation of the Critical Thinking Attitude Scale (CTAS). Beyond mere language translation, this adaptation involved testing the factorial structure, refining items for cultural and linguistic appropriateness, and establishing the reliability and validity of the instrument in a large sample of Italian university students. This work therefore offers a standardized and contextually adapted measure of critical thinking attitude, suitable for educational research and practical applications in higher education.

The aim of the current study was to develop a new measure of the attitude to critical thinking, drawing on previous theories and scales. Although there was a general conceptual model encompassing various aspects of disposition to critical thinking identified in previous literature (Hwang et al., 2010; Sosu, 2013; Akar and Kara, 2020; Quinn et al., 2020). The present study aimed to develop and standardize in Italian college students the construct of the attitude to critical thinking.

In the preliminary phase of constructing the Critical Thinking Attitude Scale (CTAS), a systematic approach was adopted to generate elements, translate them and evaluate them with expert input, conduct pilot tests on the discrimination index, and refine the questionnaire. This phase provided the foundation for subsequent validation procedures aimed at ensuring the psychometric robustness of the CTAS. Based on validated instruments, well-established theoretical frameworks, and the construct definition, we developed an initial pool of 32 items intended to capture different facets of critical thinking attitude, including problem solving, systematicity, openness, truth-seeking, paranormal beliefs, and inquisitiveness (see Table 1 for item sources). The preliminary pool was then translated into Italian and culturally adapted.

The items of Table 1 were translated and culturally adapted following best practices for cross-cultural test adaptation (Beaton et al., 2000). Two independent bilingual translators produced parallel translations of the 32 items into Italian. A third bilingual expert compared and reconciled the versions, producing a single preliminary draft. This draft was then back translated into English by an independent translator who was blinded to the original items. Discrepancies between the original and the back-translated versions were discussed and resolved by the research team, with the support of two domain experts, to ensure semantic and conceptual equivalence. Finally, a small group of Italian university students (n = 15) participated in cognitive interviews to verify clarity, readability, and cultural appropriateness. Minor wording adjustments were made accordingly, and the final Italian version of the 32 items was retained for expert review and pilot testing.

The resulting 32 items were reviewed by an independent panel of three experts in psychometrics, educational psychology, and critical thinking research, selected based on their publication record and expertise in test construction.

Each expert independently evaluated the items on relevance, clarity, and representativeness using a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for each item using Cohen’s κ, with an average κ of 0.78, indicating substantial agreement across reviewers. Items that received a mean score lower than 4 from at least two experts were revised or eliminated.

A pilot test of the questionnaire was then conducted with 72 participants to identify potential issues and assess each item’s ability to discriminate between high- and low-scoring individuals. The discrimination index (D; Chiorri, 2011) was applied, with items below 0.20 removed. This cutoff was chosen in line with established recommendations, to ensure that retained items provided sufficient differentiation between respondents. Items were removed only if they showed both low discrimination and weak theoretical relevance. This process led to the elimination of six items, leaving 26 items (see Table 2). The low discrimination indices for the removed items indicate that participants responded similarly regardless of their overall attitude toward critical thinking. For example, items assessing paranormal beliefs were uniformly endorsed at low levels, and the item “I expect to be able to face life’s challenges” received uniformly high responses, reflecting personal willpower rather than critical thinking attitude.

Although the resulting factors contained unequal numbers of items (ranging from 4 to 9), this structure was retained to preserve content validity and breadth of the construct. The factorial structure and internal consistency of each dimension were subsequently evaluated in Study 1.

The primary objective of this study was to investigate and validate the twenty-six items of Critical Thinking Attitude Scale obtained from the preliminary phase within the Italian student. This validation also aims to contribute to the understanding of the critical thinking attitude in Italian student.

The primary objective of Study 2 was to establish the construct validity of the CTAS through a comprehensive examination of its factorial structure and concurrent validity. The study aimed to validate the previously identified four-factor structure, encompassing “Systematicity,” “Search for Truth and Openness,” “Analyticity,” and “Inquisitiveness,” employing a larger sample of adults than in Study 1. To explore convergent validity, two distinct measures were employed. Firstly, the Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) (Anghel et al., 2021; Fabio et al., 2025a, 2025b) served as a performance measure, assessing participants’ critical thinking abilities. Secondly, the Italian Big Five Inventory 10 personality test (BFI-10; Guido et al., 2015) was utilized, with a specific focus on the conscientiousness and openness components. These personality traits would exhibit significant correlations with individuals’ attitude towards critical thinking. This expectation was grounded in the theoretical assumption that conscientious individuals are likely to engage in systematic and careful thinking, while open individuals are predisposed to truth-seeking and openness to diverse perspectives. To assess divergent validity, the Dysfunctional Beliefs Questionnaire (DBQ) (Beck and Beck, 1991; Fabio et al., 2021) was employed. The rationale behind this choice lies in the expectation that scores on the Irrational Thoughts Scale would exhibit an inverse correlation with individuals’ critical thinking attitude. This anticipation is theoretically grounded in the notion that an attitude towards critical thinking involves a propensity to approach problems and decision-making with rational and evidence-based reasoning, thus indicating an inherent opposition to irrational thought patterns.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.91, indicating that the correlation matrix was suitable for factor analysis. Table 3 displays the factor loadings for all items, showing high loadings on four factors. The first factor accounted for 28.1% of the variance, the second factor explained 13.5%, the third factor explained 13.4%, and the fourth explained 8.2% of the variance, with a cumulative explained variance of 63.2%.

The first factor, termed “Systematicity,” is characterized by the strong loading of nine items and reflects participants’ inclination to approach problem-solving in a disciplined and organized manner. Key items captured within this factor include statements such as “I am capable of thinking systematically” and “I draw conclusions through precise logical and methodological analyses.” The second factor, denoted as “Search for Truth and Openness,” encompasses six items and underscores participants’ rational reflection grounded in evidence. It involves avoiding biases, embracing diverse opinions, and expressing oneself courageously. Examples of items within this category include “I am curious to delve into issues” and “I am satisfied with my ability to understand others’ ideas.” The third factor, titled “Analyticity,” comprises four items and focuses on the competence to meticulously examine and evaluate information for a comprehensive understanding and accurate judgment of situations. Sample items in this category might encompass statements such as “I can use investigative methods to solve problems” and “I ensure that every piece of information is reliable before integrating it into problem resolution.” The fourth factor is identified as “Inquisitiveness,” featuring seven items that pertain to the eagerness to acquire knowledge. Examples of items within this factor include statements like “It would be wonderful to study new things throughout life” and “I have a strong desire to learn new things”.

Scores for each subscale were created by summing the corresponding items. Table 4 presents the average scores for each subscale: Systematicity (M = 33.37, SD = 7.81), Search for Truth and Openness (M = 25.51, SD = 3.73), Analyticity (M = 15.90, SD = 3.23), and Inquisitiveness (M = 26.35, SD = 34.26). The mean and standard deviation of the full CTAS were 101.15 and 13.13. No gender differences emerged for either the total scale or the subscales. The Cronbach’s alphas for the four factors were very high: 0.94, 0.83, 0.92, 0.78 respectively, and 0.89 for the full scale. All the subscales showed significant correlations with the CTAS.

It is important to acknowledge some limitations of the present research. Despite efforts to involve students from different types of faculties, there may be a lack of complete representation of the Italian student population. This could influence the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, the specific environmental factors of the Italian educational context should not be overlooked, as they may influence students’ responses to the instrument. These factors may not have been fully considered or controlled in the study, potentially limiting our understanding of students’ critical thinking attitudes.

Another consideration concerns the interpretation of convergent and divergent validity. While correlations with the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) and Dysfunctional Beliefs Questionnaire (DBQ) rely on self-report data, which may introduce common-method bias, it is important to highlight that the Critical Reasoning Assessment (CRA) is a performance-based measure evaluated by trained experts rather than a self-report instrument. Thus, the correlation with the CRA provides an objective indicator of critical thinking ability. Nevertheless, caution is warranted when interpreting correlations with self-report measures, and future studies should incorporate additional performance-based or behavioral assessments to further validate the CTAS and reduce potential biases associated with shared method variance.

Moreover, it should be noted that we did not examine measurement invariance across relevant subgroups such as gender or disciplinary field. Establishing invariance would allow stronger conclusions about the comparability of CTAS scores across different populations. The lack of such analyses represents a limitation, and future research should test the factorial stability of the instrument across subgroups to ensure that the scale operates equivalently in diverse student samples.

Finally, it is important to note that the present validation was conducted exclusively within the Italian cultural and educational context. Although critical thinking attitudes are theorized as universal dispositions, their expression and measurement may vary across cultural and disciplinary boundaries. Thus, the claims about applicability to all disciplines and broader educational contexts should be considered with caution. Future research should test the cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance of the CTAS, as well as its relevance across different academic disciplines, to ensure that the scale captures critical thinking attitudes in a comparable and culturally sensitive manner.

The study provides a valid and reliable tool for assessing critical thinking dispositions among Italian university students. While the CTAS has shown strong psychometric properties in this context, its applicability beyond the Italian higher education system cannot be assumed. Therefore, its use should be considered context-specific until additional evidence of generalizability becomes available. Educators in Italian universities may employ the CTAS to identify strengths and areas for development in students’ critical thinking, thereby supporting the design of targeted educational interventions.

Future research could further explore the application of the CTAS in specific contexts, such as academic settings. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in all academic disciplines, enabling students to critically analyze concepts, interpret information, and formulate valid arguments. The ability to critically evaluate information contributes to deeper and more meaningful learning. Challenges within the academic realm often require creative and well-considered solutions. Critical thinking enables students to identify and effectively solve problems, promoting a deeper understanding of the concepts and theories studied. The academic environment necessitates continuous learning and assimilation of new knowledge. Critical thinking fosters an open approach to learning, encouraging students to explore new perspectives and tackle challenges with confidence and competence. Finally, longitudinal studies could provide insights into the stability of students’ critical thinking attitudes over time.