The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation
Abstract Background Building on Hacking’s historical-philosophical notion of “styles of reasoning” and subsequent three-axis formalisation (Disposition, Perception, Organization), this study develops and validates the Eight-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale (8-FRSS). The instrument operationalises eight...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | BMC Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03320-9 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849225783915053056 |
|---|---|
| author | Volkan Duran Ferdi Çelık |
| author_facet | Volkan Duran Ferdi Çelık |
| author_sort | Volkan Duran |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Building on Hacking’s historical-philosophical notion of “styles of reasoning” and subsequent three-axis formalisation (Disposition, Perception, Organization), this study develops and validates the Eight-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale (8-FRSS). The instrument operationalises eight theoretically predicted styles that arise from the orthogonal intersections Empirical ↔ Hypothetical, Metaphorical ↔ Analogical, and Inductive ↔ Deductive. Methods Items (5 per style; 40 total) were generated from the Reasoning Style Model, vetted by five measurement experts, and refined through a pilot face-validity study (n = 50). A sequential mixed-methods design followed: (1) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA; n = 441); (2) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA-1; n = 316) with DWLS on polychoric correlations; (3) cross-validation CFA-2 on an independent community sample (n = 604). Reliability (α, ω) and composite reliability/AVE were computed, and concurrent validity was assessed against the Turkish adaptation of the Sternberg–Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI-TR; 13 subscales). Results The EFA revealed the theorised eight-factor solution after removal of two items, explaining 58.2% of variance (KMO = 0.932; Bartlett p < .001). CFA-1 showed excellent fit (χ²/df = 1.77, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.047) after minor item pruning; CFA-2 replicated adequate fit in the broader sample (CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.877, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.048). Six subscales met reliability standards (ω/0.70–0.77); two (Hypothetical-Deductive, Empirical-Inductive) showed marginal values (ω = 0.48–0.69), earmarked for revision. Total-scale reliability was high (ω = 0.93; α = 0.91). Convergent evidence came from significant positive correlations with conceptually matched TSI-TR subscales, strongest for Analogical styles with legislative/executive/judicial thinking (r ≈ .51–0.61, p < .01). Conclusions The 8-FRSS provides the first psychometrically robust measure that simultaneously captures empirical–hypothetical orientation, metaphorical–analogical framing, and inductive–deductive organisation. Its factorial stability across student and community samples, coupled with satisfactory reliability and demonstrable concurrent validity, supports its use in educational, cognitive, and decision-science research. Future work should refine lower-reliability factors, test longitudinal invariance, and explore predictive links to learning outcomes and susceptibility to misinformation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a7243c88bc5246e2b1443cd3e6ade721 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2050-7283 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Psychology |
| spelling | doaj-art-a7243c88bc5246e2b1443cd3e6ade7212025-08-24T11:58:00ZengBMCBMC Psychology2050-72832025-08-0113112010.1186/s40359-025-03320-9The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluationVolkan Duran0Ferdi Çelık1Psychology Department, Iğdır UniversityOndokuz Mayıs UniversityAbstract Background Building on Hacking’s historical-philosophical notion of “styles of reasoning” and subsequent three-axis formalisation (Disposition, Perception, Organization), this study develops and validates the Eight-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale (8-FRSS). The instrument operationalises eight theoretically predicted styles that arise from the orthogonal intersections Empirical ↔ Hypothetical, Metaphorical ↔ Analogical, and Inductive ↔ Deductive. Methods Items (5 per style; 40 total) were generated from the Reasoning Style Model, vetted by five measurement experts, and refined through a pilot face-validity study (n = 50). A sequential mixed-methods design followed: (1) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA; n = 441); (2) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA-1; n = 316) with DWLS on polychoric correlations; (3) cross-validation CFA-2 on an independent community sample (n = 604). Reliability (α, ω) and composite reliability/AVE were computed, and concurrent validity was assessed against the Turkish adaptation of the Sternberg–Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI-TR; 13 subscales). Results The EFA revealed the theorised eight-factor solution after removal of two items, explaining 58.2% of variance (KMO = 0.932; Bartlett p < .001). CFA-1 showed excellent fit (χ²/df = 1.77, CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.901, RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.047) after minor item pruning; CFA-2 replicated adequate fit in the broader sample (CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.877, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.048). Six subscales met reliability standards (ω/0.70–0.77); two (Hypothetical-Deductive, Empirical-Inductive) showed marginal values (ω = 0.48–0.69), earmarked for revision. Total-scale reliability was high (ω = 0.93; α = 0.91). Convergent evidence came from significant positive correlations with conceptually matched TSI-TR subscales, strongest for Analogical styles with legislative/executive/judicial thinking (r ≈ .51–0.61, p < .01). Conclusions The 8-FRSS provides the first psychometrically robust measure that simultaneously captures empirical–hypothetical orientation, metaphorical–analogical framing, and inductive–deductive organisation. Its factorial stability across student and community samples, coupled with satisfactory reliability and demonstrable concurrent validity, supports its use in educational, cognitive, and decision-science research. Future work should refine lower-reliability factors, test longitudinal invariance, and explore predictive links to learning outcomes and susceptibility to misinformation.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03320-9Reasoning styles8-FRSSFactor analysisContent validityReliabilityConcurrent validity |
| spellingShingle | Volkan Duran Ferdi Çelık The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation BMC Psychology Reasoning styles 8-FRSS Factor analysis Content validity Reliability Concurrent validity |
| title | The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation |
| title_full | The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation |
| title_fullStr | The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation |
| title_short | The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation |
| title_sort | 8 factor reasoning styles scale development validation and psychometric evaluation |
| topic | Reasoning styles 8-FRSS Factor analysis Content validity Reliability Concurrent validity |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03320-9 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT volkanduran the8factorreasoningstylesscaledevelopmentvalidationandpsychometricevaluation AT ferdicelık the8factorreasoningstylesscaledevelopmentvalidationandpsychometricevaluation AT volkanduran 8factorreasoningstylesscaledevelopmentvalidationandpsychometricevaluation AT ferdicelık 8factorreasoningstylesscaledevelopmentvalidationandpsychometricevaluation |