The predictive power of socialization variables for thinking styles among adults in the workplace

Perspectives on the Validity of the Thinking Styles Inventories

“…Although these studies provide no strong evidence for the validity of the questionnaire, these results are interpreted as indicators of a high instrument quality (e.g., Ngan Mang Fong, 2013;Zhang, 2008;Zhang & Higgins, 2008). For example, Zhang (2005) identified four factors, with the first factor containing Type I and Type III styles, the second Type II and Type III styles, the third contrasting the internal and the external, and the fourth comparing the global with the local style.…”

“…Unfortunately, the item level of the Thinking Styles Inventories is rarely investigated, providing only limited information on the quality of the instrument (e.g., Black & McCoach, 2008;Fan, 2014). The second approach used in most studies validating Thinking Styles Inventories focuses on a factor level (e.g., Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000;Zhang & Higgins, 2008). This approach investigates the relationships between latent constructs (e.g., the internal thinking style) and a higher-order latent construct (e.g., scopes) as illustrated in Figure 1.…”

“…Studies using EFA however reveal inconsistent results regarding factor number and factor composition. For example, some studies have identified two (e.g., Zhang, 2008), three (e.g., Dai & Feldhusen, 1999;Ngan Man Fong, 2013), four (e.g., Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000;Zhang, 2005;Zhang & Higgins, 2008) or five factors (e.g., Fer, 2005;Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;Sternberg, 1994;Zhang, 1999;2003).…”

“…For example, a high value on the higher-order variable "scopes" could mean a low preference for the internal and a high preference for the external style, whereas a high value on the higher-order variable "levels" could indicate a low preference for the local and a strong preference for the global style. And in fact, this suggestion is partly reflected by exploratory factor analysis (e.g., Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;Sternberg, 1994;Zhang, 2003;Zhang & Higgins, 2008). Although Sternberg (1997) postulates that people do not have to be internally or externally exclusive in every situation, because the styles are conceptualized as at least partially socialized, flexible, and changeable in different situations, the respective descriptions of the styles and their corresponding items suggest the respective contrast.…”

“…Although the TSI has been revised twice (TSI-R and TSI-R2; Sternberg, Wagner & Zhang, 2007), and a large number of empirical work is built on this instrument, studies provide only limited information on the quality of the questionnaire, indicating validity problems as a result. This lack of information results from (1) an unusual application of factor analyses that ignores the relationships between a thinking style and its corresponding items (e.g., Dai & Feldhusen, 1999;Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000;Sternberg, 1994;Zhang, 2005Zhang, , 2008Zhang & Higgins, 2008); and (2) these studies applying factor analysis in ways that produce conflicts between the assumptions of factor analysis (e.g., a higher-order variable causes the characteristics of a lower-order variable; Brown, 2015) and the assumptions of the Theory of Mental Self-Government. Findings also reveal (3) a low discrimination between the thinking styles' scales (e.g., Black & McCoach, 2008;Dai & Feldhusen, 1999;Zhang, 1999); and (4) an unstable number of factors as well as style compositions contradicting Sternberg's (1997) theory (e.g., Dai & Feldhusen, 1999;Fjell & Walhovd, 2004;Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000;Ngan Man Fon, 2013;Zhang, 2008;Zhang & Higgins, 2008).…”