Reliability,Classification Stability,and Response-Set Bias of Alternate Forms of the Learning-Style Inventory (LSI-1985)

Abstract

This study is an extension of previous research comparing the standard LSI-1985 with a scrambled version of the instrument. The two forms of the LSI were examined for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and classification stability. The internal consistency of the standard LSI was greater than that of the scrambled version while the test-retest reliability of the scrambled version was higher. After a five-week interval, classification stability for the two instruments was 56% for the standard LSI and 53% for the scrambled version. This level of classification stability represented a modest improvement over chance. Compared to the scrambled version of the LSI, the standard LSI yielded more extreme classification changes. Many of the differences between the standard and scrambled versions of the LSI may be due to a responseset bias of the standard LSI. Overall, the results suggest that further revision of the LSI would be desirable to reduce the response-set bias and improve the psychometric properties of the instrument.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson, G., Jr. (1988). Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory-1985. Psychological Reports, 62, 755-758.

Cronbach, L. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.

Freedman, R. D. and Stumpf, S. A. (1980). Learning style theory: Less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 5, 445-447.

Freedman, R. D. and Stumpf, S. A. (1981). The Learning Style Inventory: Still less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 6, 297-299.

Kolb, D. A. (1974). Management and the learning process. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, and J. M. McIntyre, Organizational psychology: A book of readings, (pp.27-42), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Experiential learning theory and the Learning Style Inventory: A reply to Freedman and Stumpf. Academy of Management Review, 6, 289-296.

Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet, Boston: McBer and Co.

Ruble, T. L. and Stout, D. E. (1990). Reliability, construct validity, and response-set bias of the revised Learning-Style Inventory (LSI-1985). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 619-629.

Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Sims, R. R. , Veres, J. G., III , and Shake, L. G. (1989). An exploratory examination of the convergence between the Learning Styles Questionnaire and the Learning Style Inventory II. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 227-233.

11.

Sims, R. R. , Veres, J. G., III , Watson, P. , and Buckner, K. E. (1986). The reliability and classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 753-760.

12.

Smith, D. and Kolb, D. A. (1986). User's guide for the Learning Style Inventory. Boston: McBer and Company.

13.

Veres, J. G., III , Sims, R. R. , and Shake, L. G. (1987). The reliability and classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory in corporate settings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1127-1133.