Critical thinking is a collection of many different types of defined and categorized skills, for example, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and inference skills. This investigation focused on analysis, that is, the ability “To identify intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions or other forms of representation intended to express beliefs, judgments, experiences, reasons, information, or opinions” (Facione, 1990, p. 9). Specific critical thinking training is more effective than implicit critical thinking instruction (Morris, et al., 2019). However, explicit teaching of critical thinking skills is not as effective as inherent, discipline-specific training *Grill et al., 2015). Case studies are an effective training method (Nadershahi et al., 2013). According to Gavett and Peaper (2007), the supervisor’s use of focused questioning can encourage supervisees to develop a disposition toward critical thinking. Gunter and LeJeune (2015) created a tool for assessing the level of critical thinking, the Critical Thinking Evaluation Matrix (CTEM). Method: Participants were clinical fellows, ages 22-30, who scored 15 or fewer points on Gunter and LeJeune’s (2015) CTEM administered during recruitment. Participants were recruited by presenting written information about the study to the content expert who e-mailed the information to colleagues who are currently mentoring clinical fellows. The study’s setting was the participants’ homes because they responded to e-mailed intervention modules and case studies. The design was an A-B design because the intervention, knowledge acquisition regarding analysis skills, is a non-reversible behavior, and inter-participant performance was assessed. During the baseline 1 phase, participants were provided with a prompt from Gunter and LeJeune’s Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology and asked to develop a written diagnostic plan. During the intervention Phase, participants received an e-mailed case study, detailed analysis, and background information questions and were asked to provide answers to the question and develop a written diagnostic plan for the prompt. Upon returning the analysis and background knowledge questions and written diagnostic plan, two trained raters evaluated the answers to the questions and diagnostic plan using the CTEM (Gunter & LeJeune 2015). Results: Data during the baseline phase were stable for two out of the three participants. When the intervention was introduced, an immediate, deteriorating rend was demonstrated followed by a zero-celerating or accelerating trend for all participants. Discussion: Intervention using case studies and focused questioning was an effective method of improving clinical fellows’ critical thinking skills. Gunter and LeJeune’s (2015) CTEM was a valid measure of improvement in critical thinking skills. Validating a method to measure growth in critical thinking skills could give supervisors a tool to assess the clinical competence of clinical fellows more accurately and facilitate the selection of specific training needed.
