The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not the three empirically derived factors of the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) remain hardy across study samples. Data analysis involved generating pairs of factor scores for one data set by using the factor-score coefficients of two other data sets and then correlating the pairs of factor scores. High positive correlations (r ≥ .93) indicated the three derived factors in the rotated factor structure matrix matched those reported by Oddi (1984). The results suggest the underlying dimensions of the OCLI do not break up under different study conditions.
ContiG. J.FellenzR. A. (1986). Reassessing the Canfield learning style inventory. In LandersK., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Adult Education Research Conference, (pp. 72–76). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
3.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
4.
KatzerJ.CookK. H.CrouchW. W. (1982). Evaluating information: A guide for users of social science research (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
5.
LandersK. (1989). Oddi continuing learning inventory: A new measure for self-directed learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
6.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
7.
OddiL. F. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure self-directed continuing learning (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1984).Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 49A
8.
PinneauS. R.NewhouseA. (1964). Measures of invariance and comparability of factor analysis for fixed variables.Psychometrika, 29, 271–281
9.
SixJ. E. (1987). Measuring the performance properties of the Oddi Continuing Learning Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
10.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics.New York: Harper and Row
11.
ThurstoneL. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis.Chicago: University of Chicago Press
