The Psychometric Properties of the Learning Style Inventory and the Learning Style Questionnaire: Two Normative Measures of Learning Styles

Abstract

David Kolb has provided a detailed, useful and widely accepted theory of experiential learning and learning styles. He developed the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) to assess four learning abilities and four learning styles. Kolb's work is viewed favourably for establishing the existence of individual differences in learning styles, but the major criticism against his work is focused on his method of measuring learning styles and more specifically on the psychometric properties of the LSI. The LSI is an ipsative instrument and the limitations placed on the statistical analysis of data of ipsative measures makes it inappropriate for reliability and validity evaluation of the instrument. In this study the psychometric properties of two normative measures of learning styles, a normative version of the LSI (referred to as the LSI-Likert) and the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ), are investigated. A review of the literature on the LSI is presented and the development of normative versions of the LSI is reviewed. First-year university students registered for either a science or human sciences degree completed the two normative instruments. The internal reliability of the four learning ability scales was determined using alpha coefficient. The internal reliability of the LSI-Likert and LSQ was found to be relatively high. The presence of a response bias for both instruments was suspected. It appeared that the LSI-Likert was more successful than the LSQ in differentiating learning abilities and styles in the sample used. Item factor analysis demonstrated two bipolar factors in line with Kolb's theory for the LSQ. The four-factor solution for the LSI-Likert produced four factors which to some extent represented the four learning abilities.

Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities

“…The 24 independent statements regarding one's preferred manner of information acquisition were scored on a 7-point Likert scale to determine a preference for either apprehension or comprehension. Previous studies have supported the high reliability, validity, and internal consistency of this version of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (Pickworth and Schoeman, 2000;Willcoxson and Prosser, 1996).…”

Learning Style Preferences of Undergraduate Dietetics, Athletic Training, and Exercise Science Students

“…Like the LSI, the LSQ has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing individual learning style preferences (Marshall & Merritt, 1986). Specifically, the LSQ has demonstrated content validity and has been recommended for use both in assessment of individual learning styles and for research purposes (Palermo et al, 2009;Pickworth & Schoeman, 2000). Permission to use the questionnaire was obtained from the authors.…”

“…In turn, these differences are impacting college students" ability to approach and gain new knowledge (otherwise known as their learning style), according to David Kolb"s theory of experiential learning (Palermo, Walker, Brown, & Zogi, 2009). Kolb"s theory has been previously detailed by many scholars (Austin, 2004;Heffler, 2001;Jones, Reichard, & Mokhtari, 2003;Palermo et al, 2009;Pickworth & Schoeman, 2000;Rassool & Rawaf, 2007;Wessel et al, 1999) and is based on an individual"s assessment of and ability to learn from experience. Kolb proposed that people have different approaches to perceiving, processing, and integrating information, which differ depending upon their circumstances and environment (Austin, 2004).…”

A Critical-Reflective Evaluation Of The Usefulness Of The Motivational Styles Questionnaire

“…Evidence has shown that the use of ipsative personality tests is common within organisations for making pertinent decisions about people, which results in a comparison amongst people (Johnson et al, 1988;Martinussen, Richardsen & varum, 2001;Meade, 2004;Pickworth & Schoeman, 2000;Saville & Willson, 1991). Hence it is clear that there is still some confusion with regard to the use of ipsative instruments as tools for comparing people against one another.…”