Beyond Static Snapshots: Assessing Critical Thinking Ability Through Iterative Argumentation Processes

In an era of information explosion and overload, individuals face a constant influx of mixed-quality, contradictory data. Navigating this complex landscape requires critical thinking, which enables individuals to dynamically adjust their reasoning and refine judgments. Consequently, accurately measuring this dynamic ability is essential. However, existing assessments predominantly focus on single-round argumentation and fail to capture the iterative process, potentially yielding unrepresentative evaluations of real-world performance. To address this gap, this study develops the Iterative Argumentation Task (IAT), a novel assessment tool that presents participants with a sequence of interrelated passages simulating real-world information flow. By capturing the process of evaluation, position changes, and argument revisions, the IAT evaluates three ability dimensions: single-round argument analysis, inter-argument relationship analysis, and argument integration. We recruited 355 undergraduates to validate the IAT. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the proposed measurement structure. Furthermore, correlations with established critical thinking and reasoning tests demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. Moreover, performance differences between the undergraduates and 33 debaters established known-groups validity. Finally, latent profile analysis identified four distinct profiles across the IAT dimensions. Together, these findings establish the IAT as a theoretically sound and practically effective tool for assessing critical thinking.