Publication:
The 8-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale: Development, Validation, and Psychometric Evaluation

dc.authorscopusid57190941048
dc.authorscopusid57959327700
dc.authorwosidÇelik, Ferdi/Hhm-7933-2022
dc.authorwosidDuran, Volkan/Aan-6759-2020
dc.contributor.authorDuran, Volkan
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Ferdi
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-11T00:43:05Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Duran, Volkan] Igdir Univ, Psychol Dept, Samsun, Turkiye; [Celik, Ferdi] Ondokuz Mayis Univ, Samsun, Turkiyeen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground 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 (alpha, omega) 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 (chi(2)/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 (omega/0.70-0.77); two (Hypothetical-Deductive, Empirical-Inductive) showed marginal values (omega = 0.48-0.69), earmarked for revision. Total-scale reliability was high (omega = 0.93; alpha = 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 approximate to .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.en_US
dc.description.woscitationindexSocial Science Citation Index
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40359-025-03320-9
dc.identifier.issn2050-7283
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid40830536
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105013645254
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03320-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/38721
dc.identifier.volume13en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001553995900005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Natureen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Psychologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectReasoning Stylesen_US
dc.subject8-FRSSen_US
dc.subjectFactor Analysisen_US
dc.subjectContent Validityen_US
dc.subjectReliabilityen_US
dc.subjectConcurrent Validityen_US
dc.titleThe 8-Factor Reasoning Styles Scale: Development, Validation, and Psychometric Evaluationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files