Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait-multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments.
Saved in:
| Title: | Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait-multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Cook DA (AUTHOR), Smith AJ (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Medical Education. Sep2006, Vol. 40 Issue 9, p900-907. 8p. |
| Abstract: | Cognitive and learning styles research is limited by the lack of evidence supporting valid interpretations of style assessment scores. We sought evidence to support the validity of scores from 4 instruments: the Index of Learning Styles (ILS); the Learning Style Inventory (LSI); the Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA), and the Learning Style Type Indicator (LSTI). The ILS assesses 4 domains: sensing-intuitive (SensInt), active-reflective (ActRefl), sequential-global (SeqGlob) and visual-verbal (VisVerb), each of which parallel a similar domain in at least 1 of the other instruments. We administered the ILS, LSI and CSA to family medicine and internal medicine residents and Year 1 and 3 medical students and applied the multitrait-multimethod matrix to evaluate convergence and discrimination. After 3 months participants repeated the ILS and completed the LSTI. A total of 89 residents and medical students participated. Multitrait-multimethod analysis showed evidence of both convergence and discrimination for ActRefl (ILS, LSI and LSTI) and SensInt (ILS and LSTI) scores. ILS SeqGlob and SensInt scores showed unanticipated correlation. No other domains met the criteria for convergence or discrimination. Test-retest reliabilities for ILS scores were 0.856 for SensInt, 0.809 for ActRefl, 0.703 for SeqGlob and 0.684 for VisVerb. Cronbach's alpha values were > or = 0.810 for LSI and 0.237-0.758 for LSTI. At least 9 participants misinterpreted the LSI instructions. These data support the validity of ILS active-reflective and sensing-intuitive scores, LSI active-reflective scores and LSTI sensing-intuitive scores for determining learning styles in this population. Cognitive style and learning style scores may not be interchangeable, even for constructs with similar definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 105945320 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait-multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook+DA%22">Cook DA</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Smith+AJ%22">Smith AJ</searchLink> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Sep2006, Vol. 40 Issue 9, p900-907. 8p. – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Cognitive and learning styles research is limited by the lack of evidence supporting valid interpretations of style assessment scores. We sought evidence to support the validity of scores from 4 instruments: the Index of Learning Styles (ILS); the Learning Style Inventory (LSI); the Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA), and the Learning Style Type Indicator (LSTI). The ILS assesses 4 domains: sensing-intuitive (SensInt), active-reflective (ActRefl), sequential-global (SeqGlob) and visual-verbal (VisVerb), each of which parallel a similar domain in at least 1 of the other instruments. We administered the ILS, LSI and CSA to family medicine and internal medicine residents and Year 1 and 3 medical students and applied the multitrait-multimethod matrix to evaluate convergence and discrimination. After 3 months participants repeated the ILS and completed the LSTI. A total of 89 residents and medical students participated. Multitrait-multimethod analysis showed evidence of both convergence and discrimination for ActRefl (ILS, LSI and LSTI) and SensInt (ILS and LSTI) scores. ILS SeqGlob and SensInt scores showed unanticipated correlation. No other domains met the criteria for convergence or discrimination. Test-retest reliabilities for ILS scores were 0.856 for SensInt, 0.809 for ActRefl, 0.703 for SeqGlob and 0.684 for VisVerb. Cronbach's alpha values were > or = 0.810 for LSI and 0.237-0.758 for LSTI. At least 9 participants misinterpreted the LSI instructions. These data support the validity of ILS active-reflective and sensing-intuitive scores, LSI active-reflective scores and LSTI sensing-intuitive scores for determining learning styles in this population. Cognitive style and learning style scores may not be interchangeable, even for constructs with similar definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=105945320 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02542.x Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 8 StartPage: 900 Titles: – TitleFull: Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait-multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cook DA – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Smith AJ IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Text: Sep2006 Type: published Y: 2006 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 03080110 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 40 – Type: issue Value: 9 Titles: – TitleFull: Medical Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
