Watson-Glaser II
Critical Thinking Appraisal

Think Better. Think Critically. Think Watson.

Critical thinking is the ability to look at a situation and clearly understand it from multiple perspectives so the best decision can be made.

The Watson-Glaser series is the gold standard for measuring critical thinking ability and decision making in high-potential professionals, new managers, and future leaders. Backed by science and decades of research, the assessment is used in organisations as a selection and development tool and in academic settings to assess gains in critical thinking from specific coursework.

Watson At-A-Glance

• Measures thinking, reasoning, and intelligence
• Predicts problem solving, creativity and strategic thinking
• Long history of use in business and education

Watson-Glaser History

The Watson-Glaser has a distinguished history, dating back to its initial development in 1925 by Goodwin Watson and E. M. Glaser, a professor and student at Columbia Teachers College. The first version was the Watson tests of fair-mindedness, published in 1925. The first extensive revision was the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking, published in 1941. Then followed a series of revisions aimed at creating parallel forms, reducing the number of items, and improving the test. In 1994 a Short Form was published which increased its popularity in corporations. In June of 2009, Pearson published the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal, introducing its easy-to-use RED model of critical thinking.

• Correlates with other leading ability and personality tests

Reliability

• Form D Coefficient Alpha = .83
• Form E Coefficient Alpha = .81

Validity

• Cognitive ability (r = .60 with WAIS-IV fluid reasoning composite; n = 49)
• Occupational and educational attainment (r = .28 with job level; n = 432; r = .33 with education level; n = 581)
• Job performance (r = .28 with supervisory ratings of core critical thinking behaviours; n = 68)

Factors

Exploratory factor analyses of Watson-Glaser Form A, B, and Short consistently showed 3 factors as the most interpretable solution:

• Recognise Assumptions: Recognise Assumptions subtest
• Evaluate Arguments: Evaluate Arguments subtest
• Draw Conclusions: Infer, Deduce, and Interpret subtests

Source: Watson-Glaser II Technical Manual (PDF 665KB).

• Classifies individuals as having low, average, or high critical thinking ability
• Questions separate “bright” from “exceptional”

New RED Model of Critical Thinking

• Recognise Assumptions: Recognising assumptions in ideas, statements, and strategies

Recognise Assumptions

This is the ability to separate fact from opinion. It is deceptively easy to listen to a comment or presentation and assume the information presented is true even though no evidence was given to back it up. Noticing and questioning assumptions helps to reveal information gaps or unfounded logic. Taking it a step further, when we examine assumptions through the eyes of different people (e.g., the viewpoint of different stakeholders), the end result is a richer perspective on a topic.

• Evaluate Arguments: Evaluating the merit of arguments or information that is presented

Evaluate Arguments

The art of evaluating arguments entails analysing information objectively and accurately, questioning the quality of supporting evidence, and understanding how emotion influences the situation. Common barriers include confirmation bias, or allowing emotions — yours or others — to get in the way of objective evaluation. People may quickly come to a conclusion simply to avoid conflict. Being able to remain objective and sort through the validity of different positions helps people draw more accurate conclusions.

• Draw Conclusions: Drawing appropriate conclusions based on the evidence available; Brings together Inference, Deduction and Interpretation subtests

Draw Conclusions

People who possess this skill are able to bring diverse information together to arrive at conclusions that logically follow from the available evidence, and they do not inappropriately generalise beyond the evidence. Furthermore, they will change their position when the evidence warrants doing so. They are often characterised as having "good judgement" because they typically arrive at a quality decision.