Analytical Thinking
Larry Birnbaum, PhD, FASEP, EPC
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN  55811

We make decisions every day.  Some of those decisions require analytical or critical thinking*.  Exercise physiologists, like other health care providers, have to make decisions that impact their clients.  Surely we want to make the best possible decisions to provide the best possible care for our clients.  In that regard, can we become better analytical thinkers?  We can but it takes practice.

The first and most important step in analytical thinking is to recognize and acknowledge our own biases.  We interpret all the information we receive through those filters (biases).  Recognition of those biases will help us see the information from different viewpoints.  The second most important step may be to recognize the bias of those providing the information.  Everyone is biased, including scientists.  If we can remove the biases, we can get closer to the truth.  That may seem simple enough, but it isn’t.  Fortunately, there are processes we can use to improve our analytical thinking skills.

Moran [1] proposes several questions that people should ask themselves when critical thinking is required.  These questions are particularly worth asking when reading articles in professional journals or just watching the evening news.  Not all of these questions would be applicable in every decision exercise physiologists must confront, but going through the process will help develop analytical thinking skills. 

1.  What is the claim or conclusion we are asked to believe?

This is usually straightforward but may have to be inferred in articles that we read.  In a client situation, we may be asked about a weight loss program, a performance enhancing program, or a supplement. 

2.  Who or what is the source of the claim?

Basically, we are asking how credible the source of information is.  For research, it is helpful to know who funded the study and if the authors have potential conflicts of interest.  Is the journal peer-reviewed?  Where are the authors getting their information?  Are there well-designed research studies that support claims of a weight loss program, performance enhancing program, or supplement? 

3.  What evidence is used to support the main claim or argument?

Is the evidence derived from research?  If so, then the design, analysis, and interpretation of the collected data need to be evaluated (see next question).  Anecdotal evidence (e.g., personal experiences), intuition, or ascribing a claim to an expert authority are other sources of evidence.  Typically, these are less reliable than research evidence.  Testimonials, a type of anecdotal evidence, are commonly used to support claims of weight loss programs, performance enhancing programs, and supplements. 

4.  How valid is the evidence?

For research studies, the design must be appropriate for the question and the statistical test(s) used must be appropriate for the design.  The interpretation of the data analysis must also be scrutinized.  Pay attention to how conclusions are worded.  Words such as may, should, or could are commonly used to support a claim when the evidence does not.

For evidence that is not research based, look for flaws or inconsistencies in the evidence or claims.  Is the information accurate?  Can you validate the information, particularly factual claims?  Is the claim based on questionable assumptions?  Are statements misleading?  Do they have any bearing on the claim or are they used to arouse an emotional response?  If experts are used, are they truly experts?  For example, “scientists” may be used to support a claim, but the term scientist is very broad.  Medical doctors are scientists, but few can be considered experts on nutritional supplements.

5.  Are there alternative explanations for the evidence provided, and, if so, how reasonable are they?

Generally, facts can be interpreted in more than one way depending on one’s perspective.  Try to see the evidence from different points of view.

6.  Finally, check your assumptions before drawing conclusions.

Question every piece of information including your own beliefs.  This involves recognizing your biases and the biases of others.

Elder and Paul [2] propose a checklist for reasoning (i.e., think analytically), which encompasses Moran’s questions. 

1.  Purpose - what is the purpose, objective or function of the article, discussion, presentation, product?

2.  Question – what is the question, problem or issue that that is being addressed?  Can the question be asked in other ways?  Is it being asked in a way that leads to a preconceived conclusion?  Are there sub-questions?

3.  Information – what facts, data, evidence, and/or experience are being used to address the question?  Are the facts truly facts?  Is the information limited?  Is additional information needed?

4.  Inferences – do inferences logically follow the evidence?  Are other conclusions possible?  Are biases coloring the interpretation(s) of the data?

5.  Assumptions – what assumptions are being made?  Are they valid, justifiable assumptions?

6.  Concepts – what ideas, theories, laws, principles, or hypotheses are being used?  Are there any conflicting concepts?  If so, does the evidence support one idea more than another (careful – do we have all the evidence?)?

7.  Perspective – what is the perspective of the author(s) or presenter?  What is your perspective?

8.  Implications – what are the possible consequences of decision X, Y, or Z?  Weigh the consequences before making a final decision.

Using either Moran’s or Elder and Paul’s systems will enhance your ability to think analytically and make better decisions.  It takes practice, but regularly asking yourself these questions will make analytical thinking become almost second nature.

References

1.  Moran, A.P.  (1997)  Managing your own learning at university:  a practical guide.  Dublin:  University College Dublin Press.

 2.  Elder L., Paul R.  (2005)  A Miniature Guide for Students and Faculty to the Foundations of Analytic Thinking, 2^nd Ed.  Dillon Beach, CA:  The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

*For this article analytical and critical thinking are considered synonymous.