Current Status
Not Enrolled
Price
$69.00
Get Started

The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is a well-known psychological test designed to assess critical thinking skills. It’s widely used in the recruitment process, particularly for positions requiring strong decision-making and problem-solving abilities, such as management and legal roles.

This Watson Glaser Test pack includes tests in the following topics:

  24/7 Customer Support
  
 * 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) stands as one of the premier tools designed to measure an individual’s critical thinking skills. Widely used in both academic settings and the corporate world, this tool assists in identifying the level at which a person can think critically, a skill that’s undeniably vital in today’s complex and dynamic world.

History and Development

Developed during the 1920s by Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser, the WGCTA was initially designed to measure and understand critical thinking abilities in high school and college students. Over time, as the value of critical thinking became evident across various sectors, the test began to gain prominence in recruitment processes, talent management, and training needs assessments in organizations.

Test Structure

The Watson-Glaser test is structured into five key sections, each focusing on a different aspect of critical thinking:

  1. Inference: Assesses one’s ability to discern the degree of truth or falsity of inferences drawn from given information.
  2. Recognition of Assumptions: Evaluates whether a test-taker can identify unstated assumptions in a statement.
  3. Deduction: Examines if an individual can determine if certain conclusions necessarily follow from given information.
  4. Interpretation: Assesses one’s ability to weigh evidence and decide if it supports a particular interpretation.
  5. Evaluation of Arguments: Tests the ability to differentiate between strong and weak arguments.

Duration and Number of Questions

The Watson-Glaser test typically consists of around 40 questions, and candidates are usually given 30 minutes to complete it, although this might vary based on the version or the specific requirements of the organization administering the test.

Versions of the Test

There are different versions of the Watson-Glaser test, including short forms and online adaptations. Some versions might differ slightly in format, number of questions, or time allotment, but the core components testing critical thinking remain consistent.

Tips for Taking the Test

  • Read Carefully: Given the critical thinking nature of the test, it’s imperative to understand the information provided thoroughly.
  • Practice: Familiarity with the test format can significantly help during the actual test.
  • Manage Time: Since it’s a timed test, ensure that you allocate your time wisely to attempt all sections.

Watson Glaser Assessment Sample Test Questions

The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is used to assess an individual’s ability to think critically. It encompasses a range of skills such as inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments. Below are sample test questions for each of the five sections:

1. Inference

Statement: All employees at XYZ Corporation receive health benefits. Alice is an employee at XYZ Corporation.

Question: Alice receives health benefits.

Options:

  • True
  • Probably True
  • Insufficient Data to Determine
  • Probably False
  • False

2. Recognition of Assumptions

Statement: To improve sales, we need to increase our advertising efforts.

Question: An assumption made in the statement is that advertising affects sales.

Options:

  • Assumption Made
  • Assumption Not Made

3. Deduction

Statement: All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly.

Question: Some roses fade quickly.

Options:

  • Follows
  • Does Not Follow

4. Interpretation

Statement: Out of 150 students in a school, 60 are participating in the science fair, and the rest are not participating.

Question: More than half of the students are not participating in the science fair.

Options:

  • True
  • Probably True
  • Insufficient Data to Determine
  • Probably False
  • False

5. Evaluation of Arguments

Statement: City Y should invest more in public transport to reduce traffic congestion.

Argument 1: Investing in public transport can reduce the number of personal vehicles on the road, thereby reducing congestion.

Argument 2: Many popular cities around the world with lesser traffic congestion have a strong public transport system.

Question: Which of the arguments is stronger?

Options:

  • Argument 1
  • Argument 2
  • Both are equally strong
  • Both are equally weak

Here are eight more hypothetical situational judgment questions, similar in style to what might be encountered in an assessment:


1. Situation: As a supervisor, you notice that two of your team members often engage in personal conversations during work hours, which seems to be affecting their productivity.

Question: How would you address this?

A. Ignore the situation, hoping it resolves on its own.
B. Publicly reprimand both employees during a team meeting.
C. Speak to the two employees privately, expressing your observations and concerns.
D. Assign them more work to keep them occupied.


2. Situation: A client emails you expressing dissatisfaction with a recent service they received.

Question: What’s your first step?

A. Ignore the email since you believe the service provided was satisfactory.
B. Immediately offer a discount on their next purchase or service.
C. Respond to the email, acknowledging their feelings and asking for specific feedback.
D. Forward the email to your supervisor without responding.


3. Situation: You’re leading a project, and one team member consistently offers ideas that are out-of-the-box but also off-topic.

Question: How do you handle this?

A. Ask the team member to refrain from sharing ideas in future meetings.
B. Allow them to continue, hoping the ideas eventually become relevant.
C. Privately discuss with the team member, appreciating their enthusiasm but guiding them to stay on track.
D. Encourage other team members to critique the ideas publicly.


4. Situation: A colleague is consistently late for work, causing delays in morning meetings.

Question: How would you approach this?

A. Start the meeting without them.
B. Discuss their tardiness privately, understanding if there are underlying issues.
C. Comment on their lateness in front of the team, hoping they get the hint.
D. Change the meeting time to accommodate their tardiness.


5. Situation: You receive feedback that a presentation you gave was not clear to some members of the audience.

Question: How do you react?

A. Defend your presentation style and content during the next meeting.
B. Ignore the feedback and continue with your usual presentation style.
C. Seek specific feedback on which parts were unclear and work on improving them.
D. Avoid giving presentations in the future.


6. Situation: You’re given a task that’s outside your area of expertise.

Question: What do you do?

A. Decline the task, stating it’s not your job.
B. Take on the task and learn as you go, without seeking any help.
C. Accept the task, but seek guidance or training to complete it effectively.
D. Delegate the task to a colleague without informing your supervisor.


7. Situation: A team member openly criticizes your idea during a team meeting.

Question: How do you handle this?

A. Confront the team member after the meeting, expressing your displeasure.
B. Appreciate their feedback during the meeting and ask for further clarification.
C. Stay silent and decide not to share ideas in future meetings.
D. Ask your supervisor to reprimand the team member for their behavior.


8. Situation: You find a minor error in a report that has already been sent to stakeholders.

Question: What’s your next step?

A. Ignore the error, hoping no one notices.
B. Send a corrected version immediately without any explanation.
C. Inform your supervisor and discuss the best course of action.
D. Blame a colleague for the oversight in a team meeting.


Categories: