The psychometric properties of scores derived from a Japanese version of the Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC) are examined in this study. The LCPC is one of a line of instruments dedicated to measuring perceptual learning styles that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s out of earlier work and instrumentation in the 1970s. It is argued that the more recent line of instrumentation dedicated to perceptual learning styles emerged without awareness of significant earlier debate concerning the predictive power of perceptual constructs in learning outcome and their operational viability. This article re-engages this recent line of instrumentation in general, and the LCPC in particular, with the seemingly disregarded questions surrounding the viability of operationalizing perceptual constructs. The article also alerts practitioners to potential problems with instruments attempting to operationalize perceptual preference through self-report.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin , 88, 588-606.
2.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
4.
Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles . Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50-55.
5.
Deaton, W.L. (1992). Review of LCPC. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook, Retrieved January 1, 2006, from http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/lists.jsp?letter=L
6.
Deverensky, J.L. (1978). Modal preferences and strengths: implications for reading research. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 10(1), 7-23.
7.
Dunn, R. (1990). Bias over substance: a critical analysis of Kavale and Forness' report on modality-based instruction. Exceptional Children, 56(4), 352-356.
8.
Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(4), 517-531.
9.
Ferrari, J.R. (1996). Psychometric properties of the Revised Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(6), 166-172.
10.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning styles: A study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 429-438.
11.
Goldstein, M.B., & Bokoros, M.A. (1992). Tilting at the windmills: Comparing the Learning Style Inventory and the Learning Style Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 701-708.
12.
Green, S.B., Lissitz, R.W., & Mulaik, S.A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 37, 827-838.
13.
Hambleton, R.K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda , & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Henson, R.K., & Hwang, D. (2002). Variability and predictions of measurement error in Kolb's Learning Style Inventory scores: A reliability generalization study . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 712-727.
15.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
16.
International Test Commission. (2001). International Test Commission guidelines for test adaptation. London: Author.
17.
Isemonger, I.M., & Sheppard, C. (2007). A construct-related validity study on a Korean version of the Perceptual Learning Styles Preference questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(2), 357-368.
18.
Kampwirth, T.J., & Bates, M. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of the research. Academic Therapy, 15(5), 597-605.
19.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228-239.
20.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1990). Substance over style: A rejoinder to Dunn's animadversions . Exceptional Children, 56(4), 357-361.
21.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
22.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
23.
Mardia, K.V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519-530.
24.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
25.
Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166.
26.
Moran, A. (1991). What can learning styles research learn from cognitive psychology. Educational Psychology, 11, 239-245.
27.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin , 105, 430-445.
28.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
O'Brien, L. (1989). Learning styles: Make the student aware. NASSP Bulletin, 73(519), 85-89.
30.
O'Brien, L. (1990). Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC). Rockville, MD: Specific Diagnostic Services .
31.
O'Brien, L. (2002). The Learn Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC) . Kensington, MD: Specific Diagnostics Services.
32.
Oxford, R.L. (1993). Style Analysis Survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
33.
Price, G.E., & Dunn, R. (1997). The Learning Style Inventory: LSI manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
34.
Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1996). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey: PEPS manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
35.
Reid, J.M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire . Laramie: University of Wyoming, Department of English.
36.
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
37.
Sobel, M.E., & Bohrnstedt, G.W. (1985). Use of null models in evaluating the fit of covariance structure models. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 152-178). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Sylvan Learning. (2007). Tutors from Sylvan Learning Center. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/index.cfm
39.
Tarver, S.G., & Dawson, M.M. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(1), 17-29.
40.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables . In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Wintergerst, A.C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R.C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385-403.
