華格批判思考量表之修訂

本研究在修訂華生、格拉舍二氏（Watson & Glaser， 1964）的「華格批判思考量表」Zm式（Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal， Form Zm，簡稱WGCTAZM），成為一套適合我國大學生及成人使之標準化批判思考測驗，作為評量、研究、教學及甄選人力之用。本研究修訂完成之標準化批判思考量表，共分兩種版本：其一係採傳統測驗理論修訂而成，訂名為「華格批判思考量表」短式甲，共41題；另一為依據IRT理論修訂而來，名為「華格批判思考量表」短式乙，共40題。本研究結果顯示，修訂之「華格批判思考量表」短式甲、乙的內部一致性（Cronbach α = .73 & .68）、再測信度（r = .65 * .60），堪稱良好；以修訂「康乃爾批判思考測驗」X式及Z式為效標，考驗其同時效度（r = .53 & .35），結果亦佳。另以語文推理、數的能力、IQ、抽象推理及場地獨立檢視其建構效度（r = .18 ~ .61；r = .14 ~ .74），發現結果大致與批判思考的概念架構及文獻分析結果吻合。據此，本研究以1210名與650名大學及成人為標準化樣本，分別建立短式（甲）、（乙）二式百分等級參考常模。此外，本研究除以修訂後量表探討性、職前及在職教之批判思考外，並以原表進行中美大學生及主修教育者批判思考能力之比較。

The purpose of this study was to revise the “Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form Zm” （WGCTA-Zm）for college students and adults in Taiwan. The revised WGCTA has two forms. Form A， which was revised based on traditional psychometric theory， contains 41 items；Form B， which was revised based on item response theory， contains 40 items. Either form can be completed by most college students and adults in 40 minutes. Subjects were 1210 college students and adults （840 college students， 276 prospective teachers， and 106 in-service primary school teachers）served both forms have reasonably high internal consistency （Cronbach α = .73 for Form A. and .68 for Form B） and stability （r = .65 for Form A and .60 for Form B）. The validity is quite satisfactory. Both Form A and Form B were significantly related to the Cornell Critical Thinking Test-level X（CCT-X n=119，r =.53 for both forms）. Form A was also significantly correlated with the CCT-Z（n = 378，r = .35） Both forms were significantly and positively correlated with verbal reasoning， abstract reasoning， mathematical ability， IQ and field independence. These results provide support for the construct validity of the two revised forms. On Form A there was no significant difference between male and female respondents while on Form B female Ss obtained significantly higher scores than male Ss. On both forms， college students performed significantly better than both prospective and in-service teachers while the latter two groups did not differ from each other.