Critical thinking is both a workplace expectation and a measurable educational outcome. Employers rated it highly important for new graduates, while assessment results show modest differences between entering and exiting college students. At the same time, many U.S. adults report difficulty deciding what news is true, making information evaluation a practical critical-thinking challenge.
Contents
- Why employers value critical thinking
- What college assessment results show
- Which critical-thinking subskills differ
- How effort and engagement relate to scores
- Critical thinking and inaccurate news
- What mind-mapping research finds
Why employers value critical thinking
The World Economic Forum’s Skills outlook in The Future of Jobs Report 2025 places analytical thinking at the center of workforce preparation. In the 2024 Future of Jobs Survey, 69% of surveyed employers identified analytical thinking as a core workforce skill. That was a higher share than the 57% who identified creative thinking, while 61% selected leadership and social influence and 67% selected resilience, flexibility and agility.
The figures describe employer priorities, not a direct test of whether workers possess these abilities. They nonetheless show that reasoning is being treated as part of a broader group of skills needed to respond to changing work. In the Workforce strategies section of the same 2025 report, skill gaps were the primary barrier to business transformation for 63% of surveyed employers.
Training and artificial intelligence were also prominent in the 2025 report’s 2025–2030 outlook. Half of the workforce represented by surveyed employers had completed training, compared with 41% in the prior 2023 report. AI tool design and enhancement skills were a planned recruitment focus for 69% of employers, and skills for working with AI were a planned hiring focus for 62%.
Employer ratings in the NACE Job Outlook 2025 add a useful expectation-versus-performance comparison. In an employer survey conducted August 5–September 16, 2024, employers rated critical thinking 4.49 out of 5 for importance to college graduates entering the workforce. They rated recent graduates 3.67 out of 5 for critical-thinking proficiency. These are survey ratings on different dimensions, so the gap should not be interpreted as a standardized test-score difference.
What college assessment results show
The OECD’s CLA+ in the United States reports results for U.S. entering and exiting college students in a CLA+ dataset analyzed in the 2022 OECD report. The total assessment average was 1,060 points for entering students and 1,103 points for exiting students. The reported difference was 43 points.
The assessment also separates a Performance Task from Selected-Response Questions. Entering students averaged 1,043 points on the Performance Task and 1,078 points on the Selected-Response Questions. Exiting students averaged 1,090 and 1,116 points, respectively. The reported entering-versus-exiting differences were 47 points for the Performance Task and 38 points for Selected-Response Questions.
The total comparison had Cohen’s d of 0.29 with p<0.001. That result indicates a statistically significant difference in the reported comparison, while the effect size describes the difference as modest. It does not by itself establish that college caused every observed difference, and it should not be generalized beyond the U.S. CLA+ comparison described by the OECD.
The reported mastery distribution provides another view of performance. Across the distribution, 22.7% of students were at the Emerging level, 30.4% at Developing, 28.5% at Proficient, 16.2% at Accomplished, and 2.2% at Advanced. Together, the largest two reported groups were Developing and Proficient, while the Advanced category represented a small share.
| CLA+ mastery level | Share of students |
|---|---|
| Emerging | 22.7% |
| Developing | 30.4% |
| Proficient | 28.5% |
| Accomplished | 16.2% |
| Advanced | 2.2% |
These levels are part of the CLA+ reporting framework. They are not percentages of all U.S. college students, nor are they a direct measure of the general population’s critical-thinking ability.
Which critical-thinking subskills differ
The CLA+ results also report entering-versus-exiting effect sizes for specific components. Each listed comparison had p<0.001, but the effect sizes varied. Analysis and Problem Solving had an effect size of 0.25. Writing Effectiveness was 0.28, and Writing Mechanics was 0.27.
Other components showed smaller reported differences. Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning had an effect size of 0.16, while Critical Reading and Evaluation had 0.18. Critique an Argument had the smallest listed effect size, at 0.13. The pattern suggests that statistical differences were not identical across the subskills assessed.
The results can be read as a reminder that “critical thinking” is not one indivisible behavior. Performance can include analyzing a problem, evaluating a claim, using quantitative or scientific reasoning, and communicating an answer effectively. A single total score can summarize performance, but component results show where the reported differences are larger or smaller.
How effort and engagement relate to scores
The OECD report also includes student-reported effort and engagement measures. For the Performance Task, entering and exiting students each reported mean effort of 3.7 out of 5. For Selected-Response Questions, entering students reported 3.2 out of 5 and exiting students 3.3 out of 5.
The best-effort response gives a more specific measure. Among entering students, 20.5% selected the best-effort response for the Performance Task, compared with 24.5% of exiting students. For Selected-Response Questions, the corresponding figures were 10.0% for entering students and 14.7% for exiting students.
Effort and engagement together explained 12% of Performance Task score variation among entering students and 14% among exiting students. These percentages describe explained variation in the reported assessment analysis. They do not mean that effort alone accounted for those shares, and they do not establish that effort caused the score differences.
The combination of similar mean effort ratings for the Performance Task and different best-effort response percentages also illustrates why measurement details matter. A mean rating and a response-category percentage capture different aspects of engagement. They should be reported separately rather than blended into one general claim about student motivation.
Critical thinking and inaccurate news
Critical thinking is also used outside classrooms and workplaces when people evaluate competing claims. In a Pew Research Center survey conducted August 18–24, 2025, 90% of U.S. adults said they at least sometimes encountered news they thought was inaccurate. Forty-two percent said they encountered inaccurate news extremely often or often, while 10% said they rarely or never encountered it.
In the same survey, 51% of U.S. adults said it was difficult to determine what was true in the news. The result differed by how often respondents encountered inaccurate news: 59% of those who often encountered inaccurate news said it was difficult to know what was true, compared with 31% among those who rarely or never encountered inaccurate news.
Election coverage produced a similar result in a separate Pew Research Center survey of September 16–22, 2024. Seventy-three percent of U.S. adults said they saw inaccurate election news at least somewhat often, and 52% said it was difficult to determine what was true and what was not.
These surveys measure perceptions and reported experiences, not respondents’ demonstrated ability to verify individual stories. Their value for critical-thinking discussions is narrower and practical: they show how frequently people report encountering questionable information and how often they report uncertainty about truth. The 2025 and 2024 surveys cover different topics and periods, so their percentages should not be treated as a single time series.
What mind-mapping research finds
Instructional methods are another area where critical-thinking statistics can inform decisions. A 2024 meta-analysis of mind maps synthesized 22 studies involving 1,535 participants. Across the included studies, the overall fixed-effects estimate for mind mapping on critical-thinking skills was g=0.73, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.65–0.81.
The estimate came with substantial heterogeneity: I²=97%. That statistic indicates that the study results varied considerably, so the overall estimate should not be treated as a guaranteed effect for every classroom, learner, or implementation. The studies were published through 2023, while the meta-analysis was published in 2024.
Several reported conditions had larger estimates. Mind mapping combined with project-based learning had an estimated effect of g=1.19, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.95–1.43. Collaborative mind-map elaboration had g=1.53, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.35–1.71. Interventions lasting 4–12 weeks had g=1.54, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33–1.75.
| Mind-mapping condition | Estimated effect | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| Overall fixed-effects estimate | g=0.73 | 0.65–0.81 |
| Project-based learning combination | g=1.19 | 0.95–1.43 |
| Collaborative elaboration | g=1.53 | 1.35–1.71 |
| 4–12 week interventions | g=1.54 | 1.33–1.75 |
The meta-analysis reported g=0.72 for digital mind mapping, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.53–0.91, and g=0.91 for nondigital mind mapping, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.79–1.03. In STEM contexts, the estimated effect was g=0.85, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.72–0.98.
Taken together, these findings support a measured interpretation. Mind mapping was associated with positive estimated effects in the included research, but the high I² value signals important variation among studies. The reported conditions, formats, durations, and STEM context are useful comparison points; they are not proof that one format will produce the same result in every decision-making guide, course, or learner group.