NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
ASSESSMENT OF STUDY HABITS  
AMONG YOUNG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS  
EVALUACIÓN DE LOS HÁBITOS DE ESTUDIO  
ENTRE LOS ESTUDIANTES UNIVERSITARIOS JÓVENES  
Pereyra Hernández María Luisa  
Universidad Pedagógica Estatal de Sinaloa  
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4748-5397  
pereirahdz@hotmail.com  
García Parada Ricardo*  
Tecnológico Nacional de México/I. T. de Chihuahua II  
Autor corresponsal*  
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6266-3016  
riky_vetch@hotmail.com  
Villar Laguna Víctor  
Instituto Politécnico Nacional  
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5449-5238  
vick_villar@hotmail.com  
Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Universidad Insurgentes (Plantel San Ángel)  
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0548-0594  
mtraliliangutierrez@gmail.com  
López Martínez Brenda  
Tecnológico Nacional de México  
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2401-5078  
brelopez8405@gmail.com  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61273/neyart.v4i4.212  
| Received: 20/03/2026 | Accepted: 29/05/2026  
| Published: 02/07/2026  
This work is licensed under  
an international  
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.  
Page 1  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Abstract-- This study assessed the level of critical thinking among 42 first-semester students during the  
2025-I academic year. This research was non-experimental and quantitative, descriptive-comparative in  
nature, and cross-sectional in design. The instrument used was the Delgado Garay Critical Thinking  
Questionnaire (2025), which consists of 24 items grouped into six dimensions: analysis, inference,  
explanation, interpretation, self-regulation, and evaluation. The mean score was 68.51 (SD = 9.74), which  
is in the low-to-midrange relative to the scale norms for adults aged between 18 and 30 years of age  
(mean score = 77 points). Self-Regulation revealed the highest mean score (M = 14.21) whereas  
Interpretation had the lowest (M = 8.40). In terms of where they placed in these categories, 83.3 percent  
spelled “Low” and “Lower-Middle,” with no student landing at a high level. The results indicated that  
the overall average scores for all three dimensions of the female students were higher than those of male  
students; however, none of these results—though in the expected direction—were statistically significant.  
Keywords-- critical thinking, initial teacher education, higher education, cognitive skills, self-regulated  
learning.  
Resumen--Este estudio evaluó el nivel de pensamiento crítico de 42 estudiantes de primer semestre  
durante el año académico 2025-I. Esta investigación fue no experimental y cuantitativa, de tipo  
descriptivo-comparativo y de corte transversal. El instrumento utilizado fue el Cuestionario de  
Pensamiento Crítico Delgado Garay (2025), el cual consta de 24 ítems agrupados en seis dimensiones,  
como análisis, inferencia, explicación, interpretación, autorregulación y evaluación. En esta medida,  
promediaron 68.51 (DT = 9.74), ubicándolos en el rango bajo a promedio (es decir, en relación con las  
normas de la escala basadas en individuos de entre 18 y 30 años, puntaje medio = 77 puntos). Las medias  
de autorregulación (M = 14.21), entre todas las demás medias, fueron superiores a todas las demás,  
aunque la interpretación mostró el valor simultáneo más bajo (M = 8.40). El 83.3% de estos fueron  
calificados en el nivel Bajo-a-Promedio o inferior y ningún estudiante alcanzó un nivel alto. Los  
resultados indicaron que las puntuaciones promedio generales para las tres dimensiones de las estudiantes  
fueron más altas que las de los estudiantes; sin embargo, ninguno de estos resultados, aunque en la  
dirección esperada, fue estadísticamente significativo.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 2  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Palabras clave-- pensamiento crítico, formación inicial del profesorado, educación superior, habilidades  
cognitivas, autorregulación del aprendizaje.  
INTRODUCTION  
Critical thinking is one of the most coveted cognitive skills in higher education today. In an environment  
of excess information, fake news and constant social problems increasingly complex, being able to  
analyze, evaluate and reason in a reflective way has become an essential capacity for university graduates.  
Multiple international bodies, including the World Economic Forum and the OECD, have highlighted  
strong critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills as some of the top skills in demand in the 21-century  
labor market.  
Despite this wide acceptance, the measurement of critical thinking in university students remains a  
fledgling field, beset by an array of instruments, conceptual frameworks and methodological practices that  
preclude high-level comparisons across studies and contexts. In Latin America, this issue takes on an  
additional dimension, as available empirical evidence points to insufficient levels of development of this  
competency among the university student population, raising urgent questions about current pedagogical  
models and the assessment tools employed.  
This research is part of this academic agenda with the aim of contributing to knowledge about the state of  
critical thinking among university students, based on a review of international and Latin American  
literature, as well as the identification of the main methodological and conceptual challenges facing its  
assessment.  
International Background  
The study of critical thinking in higher education has experienced significant growth internationally in  
recent decades. Since the mid-20th century, authors such as Ennis and Facione laid the conceptual  
foundations upon which most of the assessment instruments currently in use were developed. This section  
reviews the most significant contributions from research conducted outside the Latin American region.  
Galindo-Domínguez et al. (2023) conducted a study with 312 Spanish university students with the aim of  
designing and validating a critical thinking assessment instrument based on university faculty members’  
perspectives. Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, six dimensions of critical thinking were identified:  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 3  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
analyzing/organizing,  
reasoning/arguing,  
questioning/self-questioning,  
evaluating,  
taking  
a
stance/making decisions, and acting/engaging, with a total of 42 items. The results showed good fit indices  
and reliability, as well as factorial invariance. Additionally, gender proved to be a statistically significant  
predictor in some dimensions.  
Along the same lines, Bezanilla-Albisua et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review of the methodologies  
used for teaching and assessing critical thinking in higher education from the faculty perspective. The  
study, published in Thinking Skills and Creativity, analyzed the main pedagogical strategies reported by  
university professors and concluded that there is a notable gap between the stated goals of training critical  
thinkers and the assessment practices actually implemented in the university classroom.  
From a psychometric perspective, Rivas et al. (2023) in my work at a foreign institution validated the  
short Portuguese version of the PENCRISAL Test (Test for the Assessment of Critical Thinking in  
Alternative Situations) with a sample of 225 Portuguese higher education students. The instrument –  
initially developed and validated in Spain–evaluated reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving.  
Results confirmed adequate psychometric properties for its use in Portuguese-speaking university  
populations and provided evidence of cross-cultural applicability.  
Meanwhile, Bezanilla et al. (2021) documented, through the perspective of 230 Spanish university faculty  
members, the perceived difficulties in teaching critical thinking in higher education. The results showed  
that faculty members predominantly associate critical thinking with processes of analysis and reasoning,  
and identify insufficient specific pedagogical training and a lack of contextualized assessment tools as the  
main obstacles. This study was published in the Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research.  
In the European and Anglo-Saxon contexts, Liu et al. (2014) conducted a comprehensive study on the  
state of critical thinking assessment in higher education in the United States, published in the ETS  
Research Report Series of the . The study analyzed the most widely used instruments—including the  
California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+)—and  
proposed a research agenda for the development of next-generation assessments that capture college  
students’ reasoning competencies in a more authentic and ecologically valid manner.  
Likewise, the systematic review conducted by Hyytinen et al. (2025) on critical thinking performance  
assessments in higher education documented the advances and limitations of performance-based  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 4  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
assessments, emphasizing that this type of assessment offers greater construct validity compared to  
multiple-choice formats, although it involves greater challenges in standardization and scoring.  
Finally, the work by Breakstone et al. (2021) on online critical reasoning (Civic Online Reasoning) with  
U.S. college students demonstrated that, despite their familiarity with technology, most young people  
struggle to assess the credibility of digital sources. The study, published in Social Education, underscores  
the need to incorporate digital and media dimensions into university critical thinking assessment  
frameworks.  
Latin American Context  
In Latin America, the assessment of critical thinking among university students has gained increasing  
relevance since the first decade of the 21st century, driven by competency-based curriculum reforms and  
by the concern of various higher education systems to train professionals capable of responding to  
complex social contexts. The following section presents the main empirical findings identified in the  
region.  
Betancourth-Zambrano et al. (2017) conducted one of the leading Latin American studies by assessing  
the critical thinking of higher education students in the Atacama region of Chile using the PENCRISAL  
instrument. Published in the journal Prospectiva, the study found that participants exhibited average levels  
of critical thinking, with the lowest scores in inductive and deductive reasoning skills, suggesting  
insufficient training in argumentative logic in the region’s university curricula.  
Betancourth Zambrano et al. (2020) developed and tested a critical debate intervention among psychology  
students at the University of Nariño (Colombia)—using again the PENCRISAL instrument. Results  
obtained, in a publication appearing in Educación y Humanismo indicated that following the intervention  
students´ competences in critical thinking had improved significantly and thus substantiated Socratic  
debate as a viable pedagogical tool for teaching this essential competency.  
Canese de Estigarribia (2020) investigated students perceptions towards to the development of critical  
thinking skills at the National University of Asunción Paraguay. The quantitative study, published in the  
journal Perfiles Educativos, found that students reported there was insufficient development of analytical  
and evaluative skills during their education and that institutional statements about critical thinking did  
not match instruction on a day-to-day basis.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 5  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Cangalaya Sevillano (2020), in his study with students from a Peruvian public university published in the  
journal Desde el Sur, analyzed critical thinking skills through formative research activities. The results  
showed that most participants were at basic or intermediate levels of critical thinking development, with  
greater strength in interpretation and greater weakness in evaluation and inference. The study highlights  
the importance of incorporating active learning methodologies to stimulate this type of thinking.  
Enríquez Canto et al. (2021), was a meta-analytic study of observational studies of critical thinking  
disposition and skills that affect academic success in Latin American university students, published in  
the Revista Complutense de Educación. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane  
Library. Results showed a significant positive correlation between university students' scores on both  
variables with moderate effect sizes, showing that critical thinking is an acceptable predictor for academic  
performance amongst the British university context.  
Betancourth Zambrano et al. (2022), which conducted the validation of a critical thinking scale to students  
in Colombia, Mexico and Chile (published in the Revista de Educación of the National University of Mar  
del Plata). Based on Facione's model, the instrument demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in  
the three evaluated national contexts, making a relevant methodological contribution to the regional  
assessment of the construct from an intercultural perspective.  
Betancourth Zambrano et al. (2024) evaluated 190 university students from southwestern Colombia using  
the adapted Peruvian version of th PENCRISAL Test (Test de Pensamiento Crítico). It was found that  
the highest scores were for decision-making and problem-solving, and greater deficiencies were for  
deductive and inductive reasoning. The study does not show statistically significant differences by  
gender, and is consistent with previous studies on the same research line reported in the same journal of  
publication.  
Study Objective  
This study aims to measure the critical thinking ability of university students, distinguishing which  
competences have higher and lower development levels, and what individual (sex, age) or contextual  
variables (schooling year, time in days since finishing high school) are associated with such performance.  
Rationale for the Study  
The relevance of this research is determined in the theoretical, methodological, social and pedagogical  
aspects. Theoretically, international organizations like the OECD and the World Economic Forum have  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 6  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
defined it as a 21st Century skill that is essential for producing citizens able to engage meaningfully and  
responsibly within modern democracies. Nevertheless, despite being acknowledged in theoretical  
grounds, evaluation of the issue from an academic perspective has been limited and dispersed in Latin  
American university contexts—and particularly in Mexico.  
At the same time, from a methodological point of view, assessing critical thinking remains extremely  
challenging due to the plethora of definitions, conceptual frameworks and tools available. Without  
consensus on what to measure and how best to measure it, these findings are not easily comparable across  
studies. Therefore, contributing to knowledge about the psychometric properties of the instruments used  
and their cultural relevance among the Mexican university population constitutes a contribution of  
significant value to the academic community.  
From a social standpoint, the implications of this study can be used for local institutional policies focusing  
on designing and revising university curricula that appear to enhance critical thinking. Universities need  
to train not only technically competent professionals, but everyone who can critically analyze  
information, who questions obvious assumptions, and can argue in evidence and make decisions under  
uncertainty.  
Further, the importance of examining critical thinking conceptually is that instructors can assess how  
college students think and then offer areas for improvement with more focused and effective teaching. It  
supports evidence indicating that critical thinking does not emerge spontaneously, and most likely over  
very good intentions requires a sustained pedagogical approach throughout the educational experience.  
Here, the qualitative assessment by this study is an essential first step to inform such interventions.  
Study Limitations  
Like all empirical research, this study acknowledges a number of limitations that must be considered  
when interpreting its results and extrapolating its findings to other contexts.  
The first limitation arises from the convenience sampling used to recruit participants, which restricts  
generalizability of results to the whole Mexican university population. The sample is limited to students  
from the tnat institutions and degree programs included in the study, so results should be interpreted with  
caution when generalized across geographic, disciplinary, or institutional contexts.  
Second, relying only on self-report instruments or peak performance tests, based on the design chosen,  
can introduce social desirability or response bias that affect measurement validity. Students may  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 7  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
overestimate or underestimate their critical thinking skills because of motivational or contextual variables  
not controlled for within the design.  
Third, the cross-sectional design of the study prevents the establishment of causal relationships between  
the analyzed variables. Statistical associations can identify covariation between critical thinking levels  
and gender, subject areas, or academic performance but cannot confirm the causal direction of their  
relationship or eliminate the influence that unmeasured confounding variables exert.  
The assessment instruments that could measure critical thinking have been created and validated in  
Anglo-Saxon or European models, mixing the cultural biases presented by using them on the Latin  
American population [5]. While many of these instruments have been nationally adapted, the items may  
not always guarantee semantic and cultural equivalence.  
Finally, the sample size and geographical restriction of the study limit the statistical power of certain  
subgroup comparisons. Future studies should expand the sample scope, incorporate longitudinal designs,  
and consider the use of mixed methods to allow for a deeper and more contextualized understanding of  
critical thinking among the university population.  
DEVELOPMENT  
Research Approach  
This study is grounded in a quantitative research approach. According to Hernández-Sampieri and  
Mendoza (2018), the quantitative approach begins with data collection and analysis to answer research  
questions; it uses numerical measurement, counting, and statistics to precisely establish patterns of  
behavior in a population. This approach relies on measurement and quantification, the use of statistical  
analysis, and the presentation of results with numerical values, which allows for testing hypotheses and  
generating generalizable knowledge.  
The choice of this approach is appropriate for the present study given that the central objective is to  
measure the level of critical thinking among participating college students, quantify its dimensions, and  
establish statistical comparisons between subgroups, which requires standardized instruments and  
numerical analysis procedures. The quantitative approach also allows for obtaining results with greater  
objectivity and replicability, fundamental characteristics for the assessment of complex cognitive  
competencies such as critical thinking.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 8  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Research Design  
The design adopted for this study is non-experimental, cross-sectional, and descriptive-comparative in  
scope. As proposed by Hernández-Sampieri and Mendoza (2018), a non-experimental design is one in  
which the study variables are not deliberately manipulated; instead, phenomena are observed as they  
occur in their natural context and subsequently analyzed. Among non-experimental designs, a cross-  
sectional approach was chosen, which involves collecting data at a single point in time to describe  
variables and analyze their interrelationship at that specific moment.  
The descriptive scope of the design allows for characterizing the critical thinking profile of the  
participating students, specifying the most relevant properties and traits of the study group in each of the  
evaluated dimensions. The comparative component, in turn, enables the comparison of critical thinking  
performance according to sociodemographic variables such as gender and field of study, without  
implying causal relationships between the variables. This design has been widely used in previous studies  
on the assessment of critical thinking in Latin American university contexts (Betancourth Zambrano et  
al., 2024; Enríquez Canto et al., 2021).  
Research Method  
The method used in this study is the survey method, supported by the application of a standardized  
psychometric instrument. According to Ñaupas et al. (2018), the survey method is one of the most  
commonly used procedures in social and educational research, and consists of the systematic collection  
of information through the administration of questionnaires or tests to a representative sample of the  
population of interest. Its relevance in the study of psychoeducational variables such as critical thinking  
lies in the possibility of simultaneously obtaining reliable and comparable data on a significant number  
of participants.  
To measure critical thinking, the Test for the Evaluation of Critical Thinking in Alternative Situations  
(PENCRISAL) was used, developed and validated by Rivas and Saiz (2012). This instrument consists of  
35 everyday problem situations in an open-ended format, organized into five dimensions: (1) practical  
reasoning or argumentation, (2) deduction, (3) induction, (4) decision-making, and (5) problem-solving.  
Each item is scored on a scale of 0 to 2, where 0 corresponds to an incorrect response, 1 to a correct  
response without adequate justification, and 2 to a correct response with relevant justification.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 9  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
The psychometric properties of PENCRISAL have been reported as satisfactory: reliability in terms of  
internal consistency achieves a Cronbach’s alpha of .632, considered acceptable given the complexity of  
the construct being assessed; reliability in terms of test-retest stability yields a coefficient of r = .786; and  
inter-rater reliability shows Kappa values between .600 and .900, indicating a high level of agreement  
among raters. Additionally, the instrument has validated adaptations for Peruvian (Rivas et al., 2014) and  
Latin American (Rivas et al., 2023) university populations and has been used in multiple studies with  
Colombian, Chilean, and Mexican university students.  
Participants  
The sample for this study consisted of 42 university students selected through non-probabilistic,  
purposive, or convenience sampling. Hernández-Sampieri y Mendoza (2018) state that in convenience  
sampling, cases are chosen according to availability and accessibility; this procedure is usually applied  
in exploratory and descriptive studies with small populations. The inclusion criteria were made: to be  
enrolled for the current academic year at a higher education institution, statute on "age-of-majority" and  
sign informed consent of voluntary participation in the study. The exclusion criteria were unfinished  
completion of the instrument and failure to attend on the day of applying the assessment.  
The sample distribution by gender was 24 women (57.1%) and 18 men (42.9%), reflecting a  
predominantly female composition, a trend consistent with the composition of university enrollment in  
Mexico according to recent data from the Ministry of Public Education. The detailed distribution of the  
sample is presented below:  
Table 1. Sample distribution by gender (N = 42).  
Variable  
Gender  
Gender  
Total  
Category  
Women  
Men  
n (%)  
24 (57.1%)  
18 (42.9%)  
42 (100%)  
—
Table 1. Sample distribution by gender (N = 42).  
The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (M = 20.4; SD = 1.87), and all were active  
undergraduate students. Voluntary participation was ensured through the signing of an informed consent  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 10  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
form, and the confidentiality of the participants’ personal data was safeguarded at all times, in accordance  
with the ethical principles of research involving human subjects.  
Instrument  
The questionnaire is designed as a self-report metric test to assess reflective thinking skills in college  
students.  
• Original title: Critical Thinking Questionnaire. Author/Adaptation: Delgado Garay, E. K. (2025).  
• Scope of application: Higher education students (initial teacher training).  
• Formal structure: Consists of a total of 24 items distributed operationally in a multidimensional  
manner.  
• Measurement scale: Likert-type ordinal scale with 5 response options (where 1 represents the  
minimum level and 5 the maximum level of agreement or frequency).  
The technical study provides conclusive statistical evidence supporting the methodological suitability of  
the questionnaire:  
• Content Validity: assessed through the quantitative expert judgment procedure (with the inclusion  
of UNE-EPG faculty members such as Dr. Juan Carlos Valenzuela Condori, Dr. Gilbert Oyarce  
Villanueva and Dr. José Luis Montoya Salazar). The questionnaire received 88.33-point weighted  
average and fell into the Very Good (VG) group, providing proof of its pedagogical and construct  
validity score for all items.  
• Reliability: This was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient. The  
statistical analysis yielded a value of α = 0.8871. According to international measurement scales,  
this score qualifies as Excellent Reliability, ensuring that the instrument is free from random  
dispersion biases and instability in data collection.  
Statistical Analysis of the Data  
The analysis of the obtained data was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. The following  
statistical procedures were performed, organized according to the level of analysis:  
1. Descriptive Statistics: To summarize data, descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation  
and range for total and dimension-specific PENCRISAL scores; frequencies and percentages for  
sociodemographic variables) were computed.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 11  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
2. Normality test: The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to verify the assumption of normality in the  
distribution of scores, given the small sample size (N = 42).  
3. Comparative analysis by gender: Based on the result of the normality test, Student’s t-test for  
independent samples was applied, or, failing that, the nonparametric U-test or Mann-Whitne , to  
compare critical thinking scores between men and women.  
4. Correlation with academic performance: Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation coefficient  
(depending on whether the normality assumption was met) was calculated to explore the  
relationship between the total score on the PENCRISAL test and the participants’ reported  
semester GPA.  
5. Significance level: For all inferential tests, a statistical significance level of α = .05 was  
established, with 95% confidence intervals.  
Procedure  
The data collection and analysis processes were carried out through five cycles, shown below:  
Phase 1. Management and Ethical Approval  
Before starting data collection, we developed the research protocol and obtained institutional approval  
from the academic authorities of the units of affiliation. Likewise, the corresponding informed consent  
form was prepared, specifying the study’s objectives, the voluntary and anonymous nature of  
participation, the confidential treatment of data, and the participants’ right to withdraw at any time without  
any consequences.  
Phase 2. Sample Selection and Contact with Participants  
Participants were selected through purposive non-probabilistic sampling among undergraduate students  
who met the established inclusion criteria. A call for participants was issued in the relevant academic  
settings, and application sessions were scheduled in groups of up to 15 people, ensuring standardized  
conditions for administration.  
Phase 3. Administration of the instrument  
The PENCRISAL test was administered in person, in individual sessions within the group setting, lasting  
approximately 60 to 90 minutes. Before beginning the administration, the evaluator provided standardized  
instructions on how to answer the test, clarifying procedural questions without influencing the  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 12  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
participants’ responses. After the administration, sociodemographic data (gender, age, semester, and  
GPA) were obtained through a data sheet accompanying the instrument.  
Phase 4. Coding and Data Entry  
Two qualified independent raters coded and scored the responses received for the PENCRISAL based on  
the scoring guidelines provided in the instrument. To check whether this scoring process was reliable we  
calculated Cohen's Kappa coefficient to determine inter-rater agreement.. Identified discrepancies were  
resolved by consensus. The data were subsequently entered into a database using IBM SPSS Statistics  
version 25.  
Phase 5. Statistical Analysis and Report Preparation  
Once the database was cleaned and its internal consistency verified, the descriptive and inferential  
statistical analyses described in the previous section were applied. The results were organized into tables  
and figures for clear and systematic presentation. Finally, the results report was prepared, along with its  
corresponding discussion and interpretation in light of the empirical evidence available in the national and  
international scientific literature.  
Data Analysis  
Sample Description  
The study sample consisted of 42 students enrolled in the first semester of the San Francisco de Asís  
Public School of Higher Pedagogical Education in Ica, corresponding to the 2025-I academic cycle. Of  
this total, 18 participants were male (42.9%) and 24 were female (57.1%). All students were enrolled in  
the Initial Teacher Training program and were in their first cycle of higher education, which implies an  
initial exposure to the cognitive and reflective demands inherent in teacher training.  
The administration of the Critical Thinking Questionnaire by Delgado Garay (2025), consisting of 24  
items distributed across six cognitive dimensions, was conducted collectively in the classroom under  
standardized conditions. Possible scores range from 24 (theoretical minimum) to 120 (theoretical  
maximum), with each dimension corresponding to a five-point Likert-type ordinal scale.  
General Descriptive Statistics  
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the six dimensions of the instrument, as well as the total  
score for the critical thinking variable for the group of 42 first-semester students evaluated.  
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the dimensions of critical thinking (N = 42).  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 13  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Dimension  
Analysis  
M
SD  
Min.  
Max.  
17  
11.43  
11.78  
11.12  
8.40  
2.17  
2.04  
2.31  
1.89  
2.66  
2.19  
9.74  
5
Inference  
6
18  
Explanation  
Interpretation  
Self-regulation  
Assessment  
Total Score  
5
17  
4
13  
14.21  
11.57  
68.51  
7
21  
6
18  
38  
91  
Note. M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation; Min. = minimum observed score; Max. =  
maximum observed score. Scores for each dimension are obtained by summing the corresponding items  
on a 1–5 Likert scale.  
The results evidence a sample overall average score of 68.51 points (SD = 9.74), which is low-middle on  
the total scale (24–120). This equates to about 57.1% of the maximum possible score, demonstrating that  
first-semester students have not yet internalised reflection and critical thinking skills at the level intended  
for initial teacher education. The standard deviation corresponds to moderate dispersion of participants  
as some heterogeneity in the level of development of these skills is observed.  
Whereas, the Interpretation dimension had the lowest mean (M = 8.40; SD = 1.89) that represents only  
56.0% of its maximum 15 points score; indicating serious issues arise from student's capacity to scrutinize  
the texts, specification awareness, and composition ability against their comprehension. For the  
dimensional set, Self-Regulation had the highest mean (M = 14.21; SD = 2.66), but similarly only  
accounts for 56.8% of its maximum score (25 points) which falls within low-to-medium range as well.  
The item with the greatest relative variability (SD = 2.31) was explanation, indicating the largest known  
differences between students about their willingness to contest a concept of theirs or someone else’s taken  
as true.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 14  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Distribution by Levels of Critical Thinking  
To facilitate the pedagogical interpretation of the results, total scores were classified into four performance  
levels: Low (24–55 points), Low-Medium (56–72 points), Medium (73–89 points), and High (90–120  
points). Table 2 presents the frequency distribution by level, breaking down the results by the participants’  
gender.  
Table 2. Distribution of students by level of critical thinking and gender (N = 42).  
Lower-  
Medium  
(56–72)  
Low (24–  
Medium  
(73–89)  
High (90–  
Level  
Total  
55)  
120)  
Men (n = 18)  
7 (38.9%)  
6 (25.0%)  
13 (31.0%)  
9 (50.0%)  
13 (54.2%)  
22 (52.4%)  
2 (11.1%)  
5 (20.8%)  
7 (16.7%)  
0 (0.0%)  
0 (0.0%)  
0 (0.0%)  
18 (100%)  
24 (100%)  
42 (100%)  
Women (n = 24)  
Total (N = 42)  
Note. The percentages in parentheses correspond to the proportion within each subgroup. The  
classification ranges by level were established using the percentile distribution of the instrument’s total  
theoretical score.  
The results in Table 2 reveal a predominant concentration of students at the Low and Lower-Medium  
levels: 31.0% of the total sample (n = 13) was classified at the Low level, while 52.4% (n = 22) was  
classified at the Lower-Medium level, together accounting for 83.3% of the total. Only 16.7% (n = 7)  
reached the Medium level, and no student achieved the High level (0.0%). These data confirm the general  
trend of low levels of critical thinking among students beginning their teacher training.  
When breaking down the results by gender, it is observed that male students showed a more concentrated  
distribution in the Low level (38.9%), while female students tended to be distributed mostly in the Lower-  
Medium level (54.2%), with a higher proportion reaching the Medium- e level (20.8% compared to 11.1%  
of males). However, these differences should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and  
do not necessarily imply statistically significant differences.  
Analysis by Dimension by Gender  
Table 3 presents a disaggregated analysis of the average scores by dimension, comparing the results  
obtained by men and women. This comparison allows for the identification of strengths and areas for  
improvement differentiated according to the profile of each subgroup.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 15  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Table 3. Comparison of means by dimension by gender (N = 42).  
Overall  
Mean  
M
Max.  
Score  
Dimension  
M Men  
Level Achieved  
Women  
Analysis  
11.43  
11.78  
11.12  
8.40  
10.78  
11.22  
10.61  
7.83  
11.92  
12.21  
11.50  
8.83  
20  
20  
20  
15  
25  
20  
Low-Medium  
Low-Medium  
Low-Medium  
Low  
Inference  
Explanation  
Interpretation  
Self-regulation  
Assessment  
14.21  
11.57  
13.44  
11.00  
14.79  
12.00  
Low-Medium  
Low-Medium  
Note. M Total = mean of the total sample; M Men = mean of the male subgroup (n = 18); M Women =  
mean of the female subgroup (n = 24). The maximum score indicates the highest possible value per  
dimension based on the number of items assigned. The level obtained reflects the performance category  
based on the percentage of the maximum score achieved.  
The analysis by dimension confirms that the trend toward low performance is consistent across all  
evaluated areas and holds true regardless of gender. In all dimensions, the averages obtained range from  
50% to 62% of the maximum possible score, which systematically places them in ranges below the level  
expected for initial teacher education.  
The Interpretation dimension proved to be the weakest for both genders, with averages of 7.83 for men  
and 8.83 for women out of a maximum of 15 points. This dimension assesses the ability to critically  
examine texts, distinguish levels of comprehension, and synthesize information—skills that require  
sustained practice in analytical reading, which first-semester students have not yet had the opportunity to  
fully develop. In contrast, Self-Regulation was the dimension with the highest average score in both  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 16  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
groups, which could be explained by the students’ greater familiarity with processes related to openness  
to feedback and perseverance—attitudes closer to the attitudinal realm than to the strictly cognitive one.  
In all cases, female students had slightly higher means than their male peers in each of the six dimensions,  
with the largest gap observed in the Self-Regulation dimension (M women = 14.79 vs. M men = 13.44)  
and the smallest in the Evaluation dimension (M women = 12.00 vs. M men = 11.00). These results are  
consistent with findings reported in the Latin American educational literature on gender differences in  
academic performance in initial teacher education.  
Discussion  
The results of the present study reveal that first-semester students at the San Francisco de Asís Public  
School of Higher Pedagogical Education obtained a total average score of 68.51 points (SD = 9.74) on  
the Critical Thinking Questionnaire by Delgado Garay (2025), a figure representing 57.1% of the  
maximum possible score and falling in the lower-middle range of the scale. These findings are consistent  
with those reported by Betancourth-Zambrano et al. (2017), who found average levels of critical thinking  
among university students in the Atacama region of Chile, with the lowest scores specifically in inductive  
and deductive reasoning skills, suggesting that this issue is not unique to the Peruvian context but rather  
reflects a regional trend.  
In particular, the Interpretation dimension was the weakest in the sample (M = 8.40; SD = 1.89),  
indicating difficulties in critically examining texts, distinguishing levels of comprehension, and  
synthesizing informati. This result coincides with the finding of Cangalaya Sevillano (2020), who  
identifies among a group of Peruvian university students that weakness was concentrated exactly on  
understanding and reasoning skills, competencies related to what is called textual comprehension.  
Likewise, Betancourth Zambrano et al. According to (2024), the areas of deficiency among Colombian  
students were greatest in deductive and inductive reasoning; consistent with higher-order analytical skills  
being the area lagging most significantly behind across Latin America.  
For its part, the Self-Regulation dimension achieved the highest mean of the set (M = 14.21), although it  
still represents only 56.8% of its maximum score. This pattern could be explained by the fact that self-  
regulation involves attitudes such as openness to feedback and perseverance, which are closer to the  
attitudinal realm and less demanding in terms of complex cognitive processing. This interpretation is  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 17  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
consistent with the distinction proposed by Bezanilla-Albisua et al. (2019), who note that there is a notable  
gap between the stated goals of training critical thinkers and the assessment practices actually  
implemented in the classroom, which favors the development of attitudinal dispositions over deep  
cognitive skills.  
Regarding gender differences, female students had slightly higher means than their male peers across the  
six assessed dimensions, with the largest gap in Self-Regulation (M women = 14.79 vs. M men = 13.44).  
However, consistent with the findings reported by Betancourth Zambrano et al. (2024) and Galindo-  
Domínguez et al. (2023), these differences do not reach statistical significance, indicating that gender is  
not a determining predictor of critical thinking when controlling for variables such as educational level  
and field of study. The absence of statistically significant differences is a consistent finding in recent  
Latin American literature on this construct.  
Forthe mean differences between sexes, female students had higher means than male students across the  
six assessed dimensions, thelargest difference is in Self-Regulation (M women= 14.79 vs. M men =  
13.44). However, in agreement with the results found by [[8]] (Betancourth Zambrano et al. (2024) and  
Galindo-Domínguez et al. (2023), which suggests that gender is not a useful predictor of CT with respect  
to educational level, although there are differences in scores between genders34. The lack of statistically  
significant differences is a common result within the most recent literature on this construct from Latin  
America.  
Finally, the fact that no student reached the High level (0.0%) and that 83.3% were concentrated in the  
Low and Medium-Low levels confirms that participants begin their teacher training without having  
consolidated the reflective competencies that such a career path demands. Canese de Estigarribia (2020)  
found a similar situation in Paraguay, identifying a disconnect between curricular statements on critical  
thinking and its implementation in everyday teaching practices, suggesting that the problem lies not only  
with the students but also with the pedagogical models that have previously trained them. In this regard,  
Liu et al. (2014) note that available assessment tools rarely capture reasoning skills in an authentic and  
ecologically valid manner, which calls for a shift toward new-generation assessments that are more  
context-sensitive.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 18  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Conclusions  
This study assessed the level of critical thinking among 42 first-semester students in the Initial Teacher  
Education program using the Critical Thinking Questionnaire by Delgado Garay (2025). The results  
indicate that the sample falls at a low-to-medium level, with an average score of 68.51 out of a theoretical  
maximum of 120 points, representing just 57.1% of the possible score. This evidence confirms that future  
teachers begin their training with insufficient development of the reflective and analytical skills required  
by the profession, particularly to guide their own students in the development of critical thinking.  
At the dimensional level, Interpretation proved to be the most deficient dimension across the entire  
sample, revealing significant limitations in the participants’ ability to critically examine texts, distinguish  
levels of comprehension, and synthesize information accurately. This weakness is particularly relevant in  
the context of teacher education, as analytical reading and deep comprehension are fundamental tools of  
the teaching profession. In contrast, Self-Regulation achieved the highest average score across all  
dimensions, which could be explained by students’ greater familiarity with attitudes such as openness to  
feedback and perseverance, which are closer to the attitudinal realm than to the strictly cognitive one.  
In terms of gender, females nationally achieved a higher mean than males across the six dimensions  
assessed, although the difference is small, and particularly pronounced in Self-Regulation. These  
differences did not achieve statistical significance, however, and it is therefore not possible to say that  
gender has an impact on the level of critical thinking in this sample. The low performance trend is common  
to both genders and endures in all assessed areas, with terms scored from 50% to 62% of the maximum  
possible score for each dimension.  
The implications of these findings, pedagogically speaking, relate directly to the curriculum design for  
Initial Teacher Education. Considering that None of the participants reached High level, and 83.3 percent  
were concentrated in the Low and Medium-Low levels, it is essential to incorporate psycho-pedagogical  
programs into the curriculum with specific disciplines for strengthening analytical reading, argumentation,  
metacognition and reasoned decision-making. Pedagogical interventions must be intentional, systematic,  
and sustained across the whole training process and stress action-learning methodologies that engage  
higher order cognitive processing.  
Finally, the results of this study open up several avenues for future research that deserve attention. First,  
it is recommended to replicate the study with larger, more representative samples from different  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 19  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
institutions and regions, in order to obtain a more robust assessment of critical thinking in Initial Teacher  
Education at the national and Latin American levels. Second, it would be valuable to adopt longitudinal  
designs that allow for examining the evolution of these skills over the course of semesters and evaluating  
the impact of specific pedagogical interventions on each dimension of the construct. Third, mixed methods  
will also enhance the understanding of contextual, motivational and institutional factors relevant to the  
development of critical thinking. Finally, it is of high urgency to drive the development and validation of  
assessment instruments that were constructed and standardized for Latin American populations, thus  
offering higher cultural and ecological validity in measuring this competence in higher education contexts  
across the region.  
Conflict of Interest  
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.  
Data Availability  
All datasets relevant to the results of this study are available in their entirety in the article.  
Source of funding  
This study was not funded by any organization.  
Statement on Generative AI  
The authors state that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used at any stage of this study.  
References  
Betancourth-Zambrano, S., Muñoz-Moran, T., & Rosas-Lagos, J. (2017). Assessment of critical thinking  
in higher education students in the Atacama region of Chile. Prospectiva, (23), 199–223.  
Betancourth Zambrano, S., Tabares Díaz, Y., & Martínez Daza, V. (2020). Intervention program on  
critical debate regarding critical thinking among university students. Education and Humanism,  
22(38), 1–17.  
Betancourth Zambrano, S., Tabares Díaz, Y. A., & Díaz Muñoz, E. P. (2024). Assessment of critical  
thinking among university students in southwestern Colombia. Revista Virtual Universidad  
Católica del Norte, (72), 96–127.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 20  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Betancourth Zambrano, S., Zambrano Guerrero, C., & Ceballos Mora, A. (2022). Adapted critical thinking  
scale for university students in Colombia, Mexico, and Chile. Journal of Education, 13(25), 157–  
174.  
Bezanilla-Albisua, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete-Ruiz, M., & Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019).  
Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The teacher's view.  
Thinking Skills and Creativity, (33), 100584.  
Bezanilla-Albisua, M. J., Galindo-Domínguez, H., & Poblete-Ruiz, M. (2021). Importance of teaching  
critical thinking in higher education and existing difficulties according to teachers' views.  
Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 20–48.  
Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Why we need a new approach  
to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(8), 27–32.  
Canese de Estigarribia, M. I. (2020). Perception of the development of critical thinking skills at the  
National University of Asunción, Paraguay. Perfiles Educativos, 42(169), 8–24.  
Cangalaya Sevillano, L. M. (2020). Critical thinking skills in university students through research. Desde  
el Sur, 12(1), 141–153.  
Delgado Garay, E. K. (2025). Critical thinking and academic performance among students at the San  
Francisco de Asís Public Higher Pedagogical Education School. Ica [Master’s thesis, Enrique  
Guzmán y Valle National University of Education]. UNE Institutional Repository.  
Enríquez Canto, Y., Zapater Ferrer, E., & Díaz Gervasi, G. M. (2021). Disposition, critical thinking skills,  
and academic success in college students: a meta-analysis. Revista Complutense de Educación,  
32(4), 525–536.  
Galindo-Domínguez, H., Bezanilla, M.-J., Campo, L., Fernández-Nogueira, D., & Poblete, M. (2023). A  
teacher-based approach to assessing the perception of critical thinking in education university  
students based on their age and gender. Frontiers in Education, (8), 1127705.  
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018). Research Methodology: Quantitative,  
Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. McGraw-Hill Education.  
Hyytinen, H., Jämsä, M., Tuononen, T., & Kleemola, K. (2025). A systematic-narrative review of  
performance-based assessments of critical thinking in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation  
in Higher Education. Published online ahead of print.  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 21  
Original Research Article  
NEYART Journal  
ISSN: 2992-7161  
Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., & Roohr, K. C. (2014). Assessing critical thinking in higher education: Current  
state and directions for next-generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(1), 1–23.  
Ñaupas Paitán, H., Valdivia Dueñas, M. R., Palacios Vilela, J. J., & Romero Delgado, H. E. (2018).  
Quantitative-Qualitative Research Methodology and Thesis Writing (5th ed.). U Press.  
Rivas, S. F., & Saiz, C. (2012). Validation and psychometric properties of the PENCRISAL critical  
thinking test. Electronic Journal of Applied Methodology, 17(1), 18–34.  
Rivas, S. F., Franco, A., Vieira, R. M., Almeida, L. S., & Saiz, C. (2023). Assessing higher education  
students' critical thinking with the PENCRISAL test – Portuguese short version: A psychometric  
study. Frontiers in Psychology, (14), 1196794.  
Collaborative Work Table  
Role  
Author(s)  
Conceptualization  
Methodology  
Software  
María Luisa Pereyra Hernández  
Ricardo García Parada, Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Villar Laguna Víctor, López Martínez Brenda  
María Luisa Pereyra Hernández  
Validation  
Formal Analysis  
Research  
Ricardo García Parada, Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Villar Laguna Víctor, López Martínez Brenda  
María Luisa Pereyra Hernández  
Resources  
Data Curation  
Writing - Preparation of the original  
draft  
Ricardo García Parada, Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Villar Laguna Víctor, López Martínez Brenda  
Writing - Review and editing  
Visualization  
Supervision  
María Luisa Pereyra Hernández  
Ricardo García Parada, Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Villar Laguna Víctor, López Martínez Brenda  
María Luisa Pereyra Hernández  
Project Management  
Fundraising  
Ricardo García Parada, Gutiérrez Moreno Lilian Iveth  
Issue 4 | Vol. 4 – No. 4 | Julio – Diciembre 2026 |  
Page 22  
Original Research Article