Kolb revised the Learning Style Inventory to improve psychometric properties such as test-retest reliability. The data from this study suggest the new instrument has no better stability coefficients than its predecessor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonG. (1988) Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory—1985. Psychological Reports, 62, 755–758.
2.
FreedmanR. D.StumpfS. A. (1978) What can one learn from the Learning Style Inventory?Academy of Management Journal, 21, 275–282.
3.
FreedmanR. D.StumpfS. A. (1980) Learning style theory: less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 5, 445–447.
4.
GellerL. M. (1979) Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory. Psychological Reports, 44, 555–561.
5.
HunsackerJ. S. (1981) The experiential learning model and the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment of current findings. Journal of Experiential Learning, 2, 145–152.
KolbD. A. (1981) Experiential learning theory and the Learning Style Inventory: a reply to Freedman and Stumpf. Academy of Management Review, 6, 289–296.
SewallT. J. (1986) The measurement of learning style: a critique of four assessment tools. Green Bay, WI: Univer. of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Wisconsin Assessment Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 247)
10.
SmithD. M.KolbD. A. (1986) User's guide for the Learning Style Inventory: a manual for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: McBer.
11.
StumpfS. A.FreedmanR. D. (1981) Learning style theory: still less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 6, 297–299.
