Critical thinking concerns individuals’ perceptions and abilities to define problems, formulate hypotheses pinpoint important information. Identify strategies, solve problems and use, as well as evaluate evidence to construct meaningful arguments ( Fasko & Fair, 2003; Hitchcock, 2018). On the one hand, some researchers believe in the universality of such perceptions and abilities across fields and contexts ( Heard et al., 2020a; Hitchcock, 2018). On the other hand, few researchers believe that critical thinking is disciplinary specific ( Heard et al., 2020b; Fasko & Fair, 2003). For instance, critical thinking perceptions and practices in the physical sciences and their applications differ from those in the social sciences ( Dellantonio & Pastore, 2021; Kuhn, 2019). In this analysis, however, it is the view of the authors that critical thinking constitutes a set of versatile universal dispositions and application of skills in a wide array of fields.

Sternberg (1999) argued that critical thinking is comprised of three distinct abilities: analytical, creative, and practical. He uses a story of two boys who are faced with a bear chase. The first boy is an analytical person who calculates the amount of time needed to escape the attack. The second boy is practical since he puts on his running shoes and begins sprinting believing that if he only surpasses the other boy, he will be shared. The second boy analyzed the gravity of the situation, created a plan, and acted on it. Sternberg (1999) calls the actualization of all three types of thinking “successful intelligence” necessary for goals achievement.

Analytical thinking concerns the processing of information for the purpose of solving a problem ( Sternberg, 2002). It involves working with relevant information by asking important questions, contrasting rival hypotheses, and evaluating alternative solutions with a causal thinking context. Creative thinking is the generation of new ideas using available information. It concerns imagining the problem in new ways to devise innovative solutions ( Warner, 2019). It also refers to the repackaging of already available knowledge to produce new views, models, or practices. Practical thinking is the ability to put thoughts and experiences into action. It encompasses acting based on the products of the other types of thinking ( Gardner et al., 1996). The combined application of the three types constitutes the best way individuals are able to achieve goals like solving a problem or making a decision.

The limited research on Arab students’ dispositions toward critical thinking points to a positive reality ( Amin et al., 2012). Across several studies from different countries Arab students have exhibited positive attitudes toward the scientific method, inquisitiveness, and open-mindedness. Additionally, a study from Hebron University in Palestine documented the relative positive attitudes of English majors toward writing as a tool for improving critical thinking and argumentation ( Al-Dumairi & Al-Jabari, 2016). Another study (i.e., Allamnakhrah, 2013) from Saudi Arabia noted the developing critical thinking qualities of analytical propensity and systematic organization among pre-service teaching students across two large universities (King Fahad University and Arab Open University). The research area of critical thinking dispositions among Arab students is an emerging field featuring a small number of analyses directly measuring the different facets of critical thinking attitudes/dispositions.

Interestingly, Arab students have consistently scored low on critical thinking standardized assessments despite self-reporting a moderate to high level of critical thinking appreciation and ability ( Al-Husban et al., 2022; McLellan, 2009). One of the obvious explanations is that students rate their perceived abilities in performing tasks much higher than their actual observed abilities ( Dalha, 2018). Students to highly agree with statements pointing to a great ability in analyzing, interpreting, and constructing arguments ( McLellan, 2009; Suliman, 2006). Once put to the test, students tend to struggle applying their highly perceived abilities in practice.

The measurement of critical thinking dispositions in the Middle East, and particularly the Arab World is limited ( Abduljaber & Onder, 2024; Onder, 2023). On the one hand, authors insert few items in larger surveys intended to measure other constructs. For instance, in one study, the authors desired to measure students’ attitudes toward writing at the college level ( Al-Dumairi & Al-Jabari, 2016). The authors inserted two to three items about the value of writing in nourishing critical thinking. This approach misses the holistic assessment of critical thinking dispositions. None of the available studies on critical thinking dispositions utilized standardized assessments like the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory or the Sternberg’s three-pronged critical thinking instrument with reference to Arab or Middle Eastern college students’ populations.

Past research noted the deficiency in analytical, creative, and practical thinking abilities among college students across the Middle East ( Al-Mahrooqi & Denman, 2020; Elyas & Al-Zahrani, 2019). Studies from Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen all pointed to a consistent poor performance on critical thinking appraisals and tests. Students scored low on questions asking them to identify relevant information, classify types of evidence, construct written reasonable arguments, and translate ideas into actionable plans ( Abdullah et al., 2019; Algharaibeh & ALmomani, 2020; Alkharusi et al., 2019; Amrous & Nejmaoui, 2017; Basha et al., 2016; Merrifield, 2018). Students lacked the ability to assess the soundness of arguments and generate out of the box solutions presented to them ( Elyas & Al-Zahrani, 2019). In addition, students exhibited low levels of analytical thinking in demonstrating inadequate use of comparisons and contrasting when formulating reasonable logical written arguments.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive state where people overestimate their abilities and is a well-documented phenomenon in higher education. For instance, MM and Senan (2025) reported that faculty in Saudi Arabia overrated their performance in self-assessments compared to students’ evaluations. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more pronounced among low performers in higher education ( Dogan et al., 2023). Dogan et al. (2023) concluded that low performers on multiple choice learning psychology tests overestimated their grades more than higher performers. The prevalence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in higher education is high. Knof et al. (2024) indicated that less than one-fifth of first-year medical students accurately self-assessed their actual performance on examinations such as oral anatomy tests.

The population for this research is college students in the Middle East. Currently, there are no sampling frames providing all the units for constructing probability-based samples. Therefore, a cross-sectional non-probability sample from Qatar University students is taken. The total number of observations is 803 students. The students come from a variety of colleges and demographic groups. Further, some of the students were taught in the English language while the majority were instructed in Arabic. Note that the data collection procedure lasted three consecutive semesters to guarantee sufficient variability. The data came from three distinct semesters: Spring 2020, Fall 2020, and Spring 2021. One of the noticeable trends in the data collection is that during Spring 2020, the data phase collected in a face-to-face manner while in the subsequent two semesters, it was collected virtually because of Covid-19 schools’ closure. Table 1 demonstrates some of the sample characteristics.

To assess critical thinking, Sternberg’s successful intelligence three-pronged conception guided the analysis. Three types of thinking were measured, each with ten Likert statements: analytical, creative, and practical. All the statements were adopted from the Key to College Success by Carter and Kravits (2014). Each statement is measured on a 1-5 ordinal scale where students rate each statement as resembling them or not. More specifically, the measurement categories were labeled as follows: Definitely Unlike Me (1), Somewhat Unlike Me (2), Not Sure (3), Somewhat Like Me (4), and Definitely Like Me (5).

The use of Likert scale scores in parametric tests is common among social and behavioral scientists ( Carifio & Perla, 2007; Lubke et al., 2024). Likert item scores are ordered categories attempting to measure quantitative amounts ( Glass & Sanders, 1972). While imperfect, they still provide numerical values that could be used in multivariate analyses. Previous studies concluded that the use of Likert scores generate stable and accurate F test scores, p-values and factor analysis loadings ( Glass & Sanders, 1972; Jamieson, 2004) Many comparisons between Likert scores and interval scores generated very similar effect sizes and coefficients ( Carifio & Perla, 2007; Glass & Sanders, 1972; Jamieson, 2004). Thus, the use of Likert scores is appropriate in parametric testing ( Glass & Sanders, 1972; Lubke et al., 2024).

To investigate the reliability of the three critical thinking scales (analytical, creative, and practical), internal consistency analyses were conducted. Table 1A in the appendix showcases the items used in the survey, and Table 2 below showcases Cronbach’s alpha values for the three types of critical thinking for all semesters. The values exceeded 0.70 threshold set by Nunnally (1978) to consider the questionnaires reliable for research purposes. While pilot testing of the questionnaires did not take place prior to the study, the Cronbach’s alpha values for all semesters exceeded 0.70 indicating stability when applied to Arab students. The language questionnaire did not change to enhance comparative analysis between Arab and non-Arab populations in the literature. Note that the questionnaire items were compatible with Arab culture and values, therefore, changing the wording or content of the items were unnecessary.

To perform the statistical analysis in this research, SPSS version 29 guided the procedures in the results section. Prior to the data analysis, a series of data screening and cleaning steps were performed to ensure the appropriateness for the use of multivariate analysis on the data in this research. First, an outliers analysis took place where standardized scores were calculated to remove any outlying observation. All observations that exceeded three standard deviations or were below three standard deviations were excluded as recommended by Osborne and Overbay (2004). Further, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test of normality and the Shapiro-Wilk tests were performed to investigate whether the distribution of the data deviated from normality assumptions or not. The observed significance level values on all three types of critical thinking for all semesters exceeded the 0.05 level on both tests indicating the normality of the data making multivariate analysis an appropriate method for analysis. Additionally, homoscedasticity was tested using the visual test of inspecting the scatterplot of residuals. A shot-gun pattern appeared in the graphs of errors (not shown) indicating the presence of an acceptable homogeneity of variance in the data.

Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the prevalence of each of the critical thinking dimensions among students. First, the means of each item, as well as the dimensions, were calculated. Second, the average score for all items were calculated and considered as the total score measuring prevalence. Since there are 30 items measured on a 1-5 ordinal scale, the prevalence score ranged between 30 and 150. Higher scores corresponded to better levels of critical thinking.

Second, a series of independent t tests were performed to investigate whether gender or language of instruction carried any significant effects on observed results. Also, simple means’ comparisons were made based on the calculated averages per semester for each dimension of critical thinking. If the means’ difference between any two groups was found to be statistically significant, it was interpreted further to shed light on the potential effect of the attribute on the variable. Note that simple means’ comparisons were demonstrated using histograms and averages tables.

Furthermore, a correlational analysis between the scores of each dimension across every semester was performed. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate whether the three dimensions are related. If the correlations among all of them are high, then all of the three dimensions measure the same underlying construct. On the other hand, if the correlations among the three were low, then they do not measure the same variable. In the latter scenario, each dimension is deemed to be autonomous from other dimensions measuring an independent skill.

Figure 1 shows the prevalence of critical thinking among Qatar University 803 students who completed the Sternberg’s questionnaire. Overall, students have a very good self-reported rating of their critical thinking 120.37 on a 30-150 scale. Across all three dimensions, analytical, creative, and practical thinking, students self-reported their resemblance to the practice characteristics listed in the statements as Somewhat Like Me or Definitely Like Me. More specifically, the analytical thinking scores across the three semesters for all students who completed that portion of the questionnaire is 122. Similarly, the creative thinking score for all students was 117.87. By the same token, the practical thinking score for the entire sample was 121.25. Examining all such prevalence scores, one finds that Qatar University students rated themselves as very good as seen in the designated categories in Figure 1.

One of the potential hypotheses to be tested in future research is the more demanding cognitive course assignments are, the more critical thinking abilities students develop. More precisely, researchers could test the hypothesis by arguing that the more argumentation and elaboration assignments require students to perform, the more critical thinking skills students develop.

Critical thinking achievement in the Middle East suffers from persistent inadequacy. One of the solutions is to introduce analytical, creative, and practical thinking exercises in all courses taught at the undergraduate level. For instance, a business student who is completing an introductory to business course featuring online timed tests or quizzes will not develop thinking skills. If the course introduced assignments like desiring one’s own business and devising a marketing strategy, as well as implementing one or more components of it, students are more likely going to develop more critical thinking skills. Taking the scenario further, if the same course requires students to present their ideas three to four times a semester, then students are expected to generate new ideas, package them in acceptable academic format, and present them using some form of evidence. Arising from this discussion is the need to revamp instruction at the higher education level. Requiring instructors to include critical thinking assignments featuring analytical, creative, and practical thinking will improve students’ competencies with respect to the construct.

The standardized measurement of critical thinking abilities and dispositions in Middle Eastern higher education is a rare practice. Colleges and universities are urged to adopt available reputable and valid critical thinking assessments like the California Critical Thinking Appraisal for actual abilities or dispositions. Improving critical thinking ability requires knowing the starting point. As of now little to no evidence shows Arab colleges or universities commitment to critical thinking consistent assessment.

Taking advantage of available education technologies is a key driver in fostering critical thinking skills in higher education ( Goldsmith, 2013; Mandernach, 2006). Instructors could ask students to design new products or services using simulation and modelling software. By the same token, students may collect, organize, analyze, visualize and interpret data to answer research questions or test hypotheses using statistical packages ( Woo & Wang, 2009). Students could generate graphics to demonstrate how their decisions affect a variety of contacts or areas ( Dominguez et al., 2015; Ikhsan et al., 2020). All in all, once technology is introduced and students utilize it to complete assignments, the activation of more than a single domain of critical thinking is at work.

One of the limitations in this research is the use of non-random sampling in recruiting subjects to participate in the research. Results obtained represent the samples used in this study, which on face value do not differ from Qatar University’s population, however, the subjects were not randomly selected. The absence of randomization may have introduced unobserved biases to the sample ( Abduljaber & Kalin, 2019; Onder, 2021; Onder, 2022). For instance, the number of females in the sample is much larger compared to males, reflecting a similar trend at Qatar University. The students selected for this study were largely sophomores and juniors with few freshman and senior participants. The non-probability sampling strategy may have caused some bias in the statistics and coefficients estimated throughout the research.

One of the noteworthy limits of the present analysis is the lack of direct performance measures. The current study compared previous performance of other samples to the perceived performance of the study’s participants. While such a comparison is important, the fact that the current studies sample did not take a critical thinking performance test weakens the direct association, which establishes the Dunning-Kruger effect. This investigation assessed the self-evaluations of the sample and did not measure the actual performance on a critical thinking test. Future researchers need to both measure self-assessments and actual performance to establish crystal clear associations in support of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Social desirability has threatened the reliability and validity of the data, likely causing the Dunning-Kruger effect. On the one hand, students highly rated their abilities on every item of the survey to project a confident, desirable character. On the other hand, students may have assigned positive ratings to boost their motivation or quest for actualizing self-worth. At any rate, one needs to treat self-reported information with great caution when drawing inferences or conclusions about real observed phenomena.

Despite the power of cross-sectional designs in providing snapshots on the association of quantitative variables, they fail to establish causal links. The present study demonstrated the state of perceived critical thinking abilities among Arab students in the contemporary era. Additionally, the analysis informed readers that self-assessments and actual performance on critical thinking among Arab college students differ in reference to the findings of the present analysis and previous research. Notwithstanding the importance of such findings, causality between variables is not established. Cross-sectional designs fail to establish temporal precedence, which is a requirement for causality to exist. Further, it fails to establish causality because measurement of variables occurred simultaneously.

One of the limitations in this research is the collection of data during the Covid-19 pandemic crisis. Many students with compromised health conditions could not access the campus. Face to face interactions were discouraged to prevent the spread of the virus. Thus, the number and type of participants were affected by the phenomenon.

Researchers are encouraged to implement standardized assessment tools to evaluate student’s abilities and dispositions with respect to critical thinking. The California Critical Thinking Appraisal Inventory offers a variety of options. Similarly, the Warson-Glaser Test offers many options for the measurement of students’ critical thinking. This paper utilized Sternberg’s assessment tool, which has been validated elsewhere in the extant literature. When utilizing self-reported instruments, however, one needs to be cautious about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

One of the best remedies to social desirability or the Dunning-Kruger effect phenomenon is educating the sample on the dangers of both to not only the research integrity, but also to the sample’s own benefits from critical thinking assessments. Researchers may hold brief education or awareness sessions prior to the completion of the instrument. Researchers may lecture participants face to face or virtually on the need for accurate assessments and refraining from falsely aggrandizing one’s abilities. Such a solution may not guarantee the elimination if social desirability, however, it has the promise to minimize it.

Future researchers interested in the assessment of critical thinking abilities or the Dunning-Kruger effects presence should not rely only on self-reported data. Mixed-methods designs are encouraged in such research settings. Researchers may apply an objective test to assess students’ true abilities on a number of critical thinking criteria. Then researchers may implement questionnaires evaluating students’ self-reported abilities in critical thinking. Comparing both domains of scores allows researchers to establish whether critical thinking gaps exist or not.