With the intention to test the critical thinking ability of the people, the focus will be to ensure that everybody who took part in the test understood it. This allows all respondents to answer the questions based on how they are able to interpret what they have read. Nelson’s use of a write up gives an opportunity for each respondent to analyze the passage, understand it and respond to it. This supports Facione, Facione and Giancarlo’s measurement of reliability by the use of paper and pencil method to conduct the test (2000).
Also, the use of elementary vocabulary gives a large number of people the opportunity to participate in this test at the same time. A content-related validity clearly shows in its result. According to Facione et al, there are no restrictions to the content on which the test can be based, (2000), the focus therefore, will be on the items that are used in the test. In this test, Nelson was able to develop thirty two (32) items with which he conducted the test.
Based on the fact that Nelson wanted a wide range of people to understand the test and also respond appropriately, he used basic vocabularies. This, in essence, made it possible for people to be tested, not according to their language skills but according to their critical thinking ability. Hence, the criterion-related validity is established. In the use of a 32 multi-choice questions wherein there are more than one correct answers, Nelson gave respondents the opportunity to think outside the norm. The implication of this is that each respondent has to be certain about the answers.
The comparison of different tests does not have a direct correlation with the content of the test because the items in consideration were not detailed. Detailed information of the items in consideration could have given the test comparison a more valid result.
Facione, Peter A. , Santa Clara University; Facione, Noreen C. , University of California San Francisco; Giancarlo, Carol A. , Santa Clara University. (2000). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61-84