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.

The 8-Factor reasoning styles scale: development, validation, and psychometric evaluation

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年8月19日

查看全文

Volkan Duran,
Ferdi Çelık

摘要

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.