The authors examined the dimensionality of the VARK learning styles inventory. The VARK measures four perceptual preferences: visual (V), aural (A), read/write (R), and kinesthetic (K). VARK questions can be viewed as testlets because respondents can select multiple items within a question. The correlations between items within testlets are a type of method effect. Four multitrait—multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models were compared to evaluate the dimensionality of the VARK. The correlated trait—correlated method model had the best fit to the VARK scores. The estimated reliability coefficients were adequate. The study found preliminary support for the validity of the VARK scores. Potential problems related to item wording and the scale’s scoring algorithm were identified, and cautions with respect to using the VARK with research were raised.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Anderson, J.A., & Adams, M. ( 1992). Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design. In L. L. B. Border & N. V. N. Chism (Eds.), Teaching for diversity (pp. 19-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Bauer, D.J., & Curran, P.J. ( 2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9, 3-29.
4.
Cassidy, S. ( 2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24, 419-444.
5.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. ( 1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46, 50-59.
6.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. ( 1985). Manual: Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
7.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Olson, J., & Beasly, M. ( 1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning style preferences. Journal of Educational Research , 88, 353-362.
8.
Eid, M. ( 2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions . Psychometrika, 65, 241-261.
9.
Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F., & Trierweiler, L.I. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8, 38-60.
10.
Fleming, N.D. ( 2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Christchurch, New Zealand: Author.
11.
Fleming, N.D. ( 2008). The VARK Questionnaire. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://www .vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire
12.
Fleming, N.D., & Mills, C. ( 1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection . To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-143.
13.
Henson, R.K., & Hwang, D. ( 2002). Variability and prediction of measurement error in Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory scores: A reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 712-727.
14.
Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Kamata, A., & Bauer, D.J. ( 2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 136-153.
16.
Kane, M.T. ( 2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/ Praeger.
17.
Keefe, J.W. ( 1987). Learning style: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
18.
Kolb, D.A. ( 1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18, 21-31.
19.
Komaroff, E. ( 1997). Effect of simultaneous violations of essential tau-equivalence and uncorrelated error on coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 337-348.
20.
Lance, C.E., Noble, C.L., & Scullen, S.E. ( 2002). A critique of the correlated trait-correlated method (CTCM) and correlated uniqueness (CU) models for multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data. Psychological Methods, 7, 228-244.
21.
Lee, G., Brennan, R.L., & Frisbie, D.A. ( 2000). Incorporating the testlet concept in test score analyses . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 9-15.
22.
Lee, G., Dunbar, S.B., & Frisbie, D.A. ( 2001). The relative appropriateness of eight measurement models for analyzing scores from tests composed of testlets. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 958-975.
23.
Leite, W.L., Huang, I.-C., & Marcoulides, G.A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an ant colony optimization algorithm . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 411-431.
24.
Lubke, G., & Muthén, B.O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods , 10, 21-39.
25.
Marcoulides, G.A., & Drezner, Z. ( 2001). Specification searches in structural equation modeling with a genetic algorithm. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 247-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Marcoulides, G.A., & Drezner, Z. ( 2003). Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 154-164.
27.
Marsh, H.W. ( 1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335-361.
28.
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K., & Grayson, D. ( 2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Muthén, L. & Muthén, B.O. ( 2006). Mplus (Version 4.2). Los Angeles: Author.
30.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles : Author.
31.
Raykov, T. ( 2001a). Bias of coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement , 25, 69-76.
32.
Raykov, T. ( 2001b). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315-323.
33.
Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F., & Pugh, R.H. ( 1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
34.
Riding, R. ( 2001). Nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Sternberg, R., & Zhang, L.-F. (Eds.). (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Thelen, H.A. ( 1954). Dynamics of groups at work. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
37.
Tomás, J.M., Hontangas, P.M., & Oliver, A. ( 2000). Linear confirmatory factor models to evaluate multitrait-multimethod matrices: The effects of number of indicators and correlation among methods . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 469-499.
38.
Wainer, H., & Wang, X. ( 2000). Using a new statistical model for testlets to score TOEFL . Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 203-220.
39.
Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M. ( 2005). The Rasch testlet model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 126-149.
