Predictive Association Between Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Ability Among Medical Sciences Students: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background: Critical thinking and problem-solving are essential competencies for medical sciences students, who frequently encounter complex clinical situations requiring accurate judgment and effective decisions. With the shift toward competency-based education, examining their relationship is crucial. This study investigated whether critical thinking predicts problem-solving ability among these students. Methods: In 2025, a cross-sectional study was conducted among 385 students of Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, southern Iran, selected via proportional stratified random sampling. Data were collected using the validated Persian versions of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test and the Problem-Solving Inventory. Analyses in SPSS v23 encompassed descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and multiple linear regression, with significance set at P<0.05. Results: The mean scores for critical thinking and problem-solving were 18.74 (SD=4.91) and 112.47 (SD=18.36), respectively. Critical thinking showed a strong positive correlation with problem-solving ability (r=0.65, P<0.001). Regression analysis revealed that all five dimensions of critical thinking significantly predicted problem-solving, collectively explaining 35% of its variance (R²=0.35, F(6, 312)=28.67, P<0.001). Field-of-study comparisons indicated that students in medicine discipline achieved higher scores in both domains (P=0.013 for critical thinking; P=0.021 for problem-solving). Conclusion: This study highlights critical thinking as a key predictor of problem-solving skills in medical sciences students, with all dimensions contributing meaningfully. The results advocate for embedding targeted critical thinking training into medical curricula to strengthen students’ capacity for effective clinical decision-making, especially given the superior performance observed among medical students. However, as this was a cross-sectional study, causal interpretations should be made with caution.