Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2002) 147163

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Psychometric properties of Honey & Mumfords Learning

Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
Angus Du*, Tim Duy
Research into Learning Unit, University of Paisley, Ayr Campus, Ayr KA8 0SR, UK
Received 12 March 2001; received in revised form 27 June 2001; accepted 24 July 2001

Abstract
Honey and Mumfords Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) has been proposed as an alternative for
Kolbs Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and a later rened version (LSI-1985). The LSQ has been widely
applied in the elds of management training and education. Limited evidence exists concerning the psychometric properties of the LSQ. Participants were 224 undergraduates enrolled in business courses and
164 undergraduates in health studies. Exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis failed to support the
existence of the two bipolar dimensions proposed by Kolb, and four learning styles hypothesised by Honey
and Mumford. An item analysis and pruning exercise failed to raise the internal consistency reliability to a
satisfactory level, or provide adequate model t to the data. The results of a structural equation model
nds no consistent relationship between scores on the four learning style scales, two bipolar dimensions
and academic performance between the two samples. The tests of factorial invariance provide no support
for the stability or generalizability of the model. It is concluded: the LSQ is not a suitable alternative to the
LSI and LSI-1985; and its use in applied research considering higher education students is premature.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Learning Style Questionnaire; Reliability; Validity; Academic performance

1. Introduction
A learning style is described as being:
. . .a description of the attitudes and behaviour which determine an individuals preferred way
of learning. (Honey & Mumford, 1992, p. 1)

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+44-01292-886296; fax:+44-01292-886250.

E-mail address: du-em0@wpmail.paisley.ac.uk (A. Du).
0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(01)00141-6

148

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Learning style is the composite of characteristic cognitive, aective, and psychological factors
that serves as an indicator of how an individual interacts with and responds to the learning
environment. The study of learning style involves the investigation of individual dierences:
people perceive and gain knowledge dierently, they form ideas and think dierently, and they
act dierently. Research on style as an individual trait has been of interest to psychologists for
many years (Jung, 1921; Myers & Briggs, 1962). Kolbs (1976) Experiential Learning Model
(ELM) is a well-established model that has attracted much interest and application. The ELM
consists of a hypothesised four-stage learning cycle and is based on the work of Lewin (1936).
The hypothesised learning cycle can be entered at any stage but must be followed in sequence.
According to the theory, dierent individuals may cope better with, or prefer, some parts of the
learning cycle to others. In the learning cycle, or process, learners acquire information by concrete experience in the new experience. Second, a stage of reective observation on the experience
occurs whereby the learner organises the experiential data from a number of perspectives. Third,
a stage of abstract conceptualisation occurs, whereby the learner develops generalisations from
which to assist them integrate their observations into sound theories or principles. Finally,
through active conceptualisation, learners use these generalisations as guides to action in new and
more complex situations. This process explains individual dierences in learning style in terms of
relative abilities (i.e. level) for performing well (or less well) at various stages of the learning cycle.
That is, the ideal learner will possess maximum abilities for all four stages.
Since Kolb developed his concept of a four-stage process, the process has been developed further as two orthogonal dimensions of learning derived from the Learning Style Inventory (LSI;
Kolb, 1976). These two dimensions are labelled prehension, grasping information from experience (Concrete Experience-Abstract Conceptualisation); and transformation, that is the processing of information grasped (Reective Observation-Active Experimentation). This concept
explains dierences in terms of two bipolar styles (i.e. the manner) by which each stage in the
learning process is approached and operationalised. These bipolar dimensions are sometimes
described as learning types.
Kolbs 12-item LSI has been widely applied to measure learning style. Twelve short statements
concerning learning situations are presented and respondents are required to rank-order four
sentence endings that correspond to the four learning styles. Later research nds little factor
analytic support for the four styles and two independent dimensions (Freedman & Stumpf, 1978,
1980; Geller, 1979; Newstead, 1992; Stout & Ruble, 1991a; 1991b). Notably, the ipsative scoring
method guarantees that some scales must be negatively correlated. Similar psychometric problems exist with a rened version of the instrument, the LSI-1985. These problems are summarised in: Geiger, Boyle, and Pinto (1992, 1993); Loo (1999); Ruble and Stout (1993); Willcoxon
and Prosser (1996); Yahya (1998). Critics of the application of Kolbs LSI maintain that its use
for education research purposes was premature in the sense that the instruments psychometric
properties had not been suciently assessed.
Honey and Mumfords (1992) Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) has been proposed as an
alternative to Kolbs LSI. The LSQ was developed to report management trainees learning style
preferences and has subsequently been applied to a wide range of subjects, including students in
higher education. Prudent scholarship requires that the LSQ be subjected to critical analysis
before it is used for applied research and correlation studies (Schwab, 1980). The LSQ is a selfadministered inventory consisting of 80 individually rated (1 or 0) items, diering in this respect

149

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

from Kolbs ipsative LSI (1976 version). The normative nature of the scale makes the instrument
a potentially attractive alternative to both the LSI and LSI-1985 to educational researchers given
the much-documented problems with ipsative measures (e.g. Cornwell & Dunlap, 1994; Dunlap
& Cornwell, 1994). The vast majority of LSQ items are behavioural, i.e. they describe an action
that someone might or might not take. Occasionally, an item probes a preference rather than a
manifest behaviour. The LSQ is designed to probe the relative strengths of four dierent learning
styles: Activist, Reector, Theorist and Pragmatist. These four styles correspond approximately
to those suggested by Kolbs (1976) ELM: active experimentation (Activist), reective observation (Reector), abstract conceptualisation (Theorist), and concrete experience (Pragmatist).
Furthermore, the ELM reects two independent dimensions: PragmatistTheorist (prehension)
and ActivistReector (transformation).
Table 1 reports the results of previous studies considering the internal consistency reliability of
scores produced by the LSQ. Most studies report alpha coecients indicating scores produced by
the instrument of moderate internal consistency reliability.1
Evidence regarding the factor analytic properties of the LSQ is mixed. Allinson and Hayes
(1988), using a sample of managers, factor analysed the scores of the four learning style scales to
yield the two hypothesised orthogonal factors ActivistReector and PragmatistTheorist. A
subsequent study of UK undergraduate students (Allinson & Hayes, 1990) conrmed the two
independent dimensions. With a sample of UK and Eire managers De Ciantis and Kirton (1996),
attempted to modify the LSQ by means of an item analysis and pruning exercise. As a result of
this exercise, DeCiantis and Kirton produced two bi-polar measures, ActivistReector and
TheoristPragmatist, containing 45 and 15 items, with internal consistency reliabilities of 0.90
and 0.69, respectively. The modied bi-polar measures of DeCiantis and Kirton were reported as
correlating negligibly (0.08) in accord with theory.
No previous work has utilised conrmatory factor analysis (CFA): Allinson and Hayes (1988,
1990); De Ciantis and Kirton (1996); Sims, Veres, and Shake (1989) and Tepper, Tetrault, Braun,
and Romero (1993) all applied exploratory factor analytic techniques to their respective samples.

Table 1
Summary of internal consistency reliability estimates of previous research
Study

Participants

n=

Coecient

Activist

Allinson and Hayes (1988)

Reector

Theorist

Pragmatist

Sims et al. (1989)

Tepper et al. (1993)
Jackson and Lawty-Jones (1996)

UK managers
African & Indian managers
US business students
US undergraduate students
UK psychology students

127
40
270
227
166

0.58
0.74
0.71
0.63
0.68
0.68
0.78
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.67
0.52
all between 0.69 and 0.77 (p. 295)

De Ciantis and Kirton (1996)

UK and Eire managers

185

0.76

0.76

0.67

0.64

Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) indicate an alpha coecient cuto of 0.7 is necessary for instruments to be used in
applied settings, although 0.8 is a more preferable and stringent cuto criterion.

150

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Mulaik (1987) identies that exploratory techniques can never answer denitively questions
regarding the latent structure of a set of variables, arguing that exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
can only suggest structures and these require conrmation by CFA. Previous research considering the psychometric properties of scores produced by the LSQ is therefore limited.
Rather more evidence exists of the criterion validity of scores produced by the instrument.
Furnham and Medhurst (1995) report high and consistent correlations between students scores
on the Pragmatist dimension and positive performance in university seminars. Other work has
considered the relationship between learning style as measured by the LSQ and personality
(Furnham, 1992, 1996; Jackson & Lawty-Jones, 1996). Such investigations have reported considerable correlation between learning styles such as Activist and personality variables such as
extraversion. These studies conclude in general that learning style is a subset of personality. In a
recent study of telephone sales sta, Reector and Pragmatist learning styles account for a small
but important amount of the variance in measures of work performance (Furnham, Jackson, &
Miller, 1999).
In summary, rather mixed evidence exists as to the validity and utility of LSQ data. The
objectives of the present study were: rst, to use EFA and CFA to determine if the four proposed
learning styles and two bipolar dimensions are clearly identied; second, to determine the generalizability and stability of LSQ responses across dierent student groups and third, to determine the predictive validity of the LSQ by relating scores on the instrument to examination marks
for the sample of health studies students using structural equation modelling (SEM).

2. Method
2.1. Participants
Scores on the LSQ were validated using participants (n=388) of undergraduate students
enrolled in two dierent faculties of a regional university in Scotland: business and health studies.
The instrument was administered to all participants at the start of the academic year. Those
enrolled in the business faculty completed the instrument in a classroom environment, the health
studies students completed the instrument at their home and returned the instrument by post. The
distribution of the sample across the faculties was as follows: business, n=224 (males=104,
females=120; average age=24.36 years, minimum age=17 years, maximum age=53 years); health
studies, n=164 (males=15; females=149; average age=34.82 years, minimum age=20 years,
maximum age=62 years). Students enrolled in the business faculty were undertaking taught
modules requiring attendance on campus on a full-time or part-time basis. Those enrolled in the
health studies faculty were undertaking distance-learning modules requiring no attendance on campus and were located throughout the UK. As can be seen from the above description, the sample
was demographically diverse enough to generalize to other Western higher educational settings.
2.2. Statistical analyses
The appropriateness of the four styles was evaluated using CFA using the SPSS version of
AMOS v4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999). AMOS is a statistical program to perform structural equation

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

151

modelling, a form of multivariate analysis. CFAs were performed using AMOS to test for the
goodness-of-t between our obtained data and the hypothesised structure of Honey and Mumford (1992). When undertaking CFA, there are vague and sometimes contradictory guidelines
about the desirable amount of data (Marsh & Hau, 1999, p. 252). Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1997)
using a Monte Carlo study investigated the eect of varying numbers of indicators (items) per
factor (p/f ratio) on varying sample sizes. Their results support a more is better approach to
both sample size and p/f ratio. For a p/f ratio as small as six, a sample size of 50 was adequate.
Therefore, the combined sample size of n=388, is satisfactory for conducting CFAs at the item
level of the LSQ, where the number of items per factor (p/f) equals 20 (Marsh et al., 1997). In
evaluating goodness-of-t, we present the w2 statistic, the Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI),
the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the ratio of the discrepancy, w2, divided by the degrees of freedom
(w2 /df), the Adjusted-Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and an evaluation of parameter estimates to
ensure the solution is proper (Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996; McDonald & Marsh, 1990). Although
no precise standards exist to indicate what value of indices are needed for a satisfactory t, typical
guidelines are that the RNI should exceed 0.9. Various rules-of-thumb ranging from 2 to 5 have
been suggested as cut-os for CMIN/d.f.. The present study follows the recommendations of
Byrne (1989) that a w2/d.f. ratio of greater than 2.0 represents an inadequate t.
In the results reported below, discussions as to the best model t include each of the above measures. This is in keeping with the Hoyle and Panters (1995) recommendations that multiple indicators of overall t should be selected from absolute-t indexes (such as w2, and the AGFI) and
incremental t indexes, which should be selected from type-2 and type-3 indexes, such as
the TLI (Tucker & Lewis, 1973) and RNI (McDonald & Marsh, 1990). A type-2 index compares
the lack of t of a target model with the lack of t of a baseline model, usually the independence
model. Value estimates the relative improvement per degrees of freedom of the target model over
a baseline model (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). A type-3 index indexes the relative reduction in lack of t as
estimated by the noncentral (two of a target model versus a baseline model (Hoyle & Panter, 1995).
The hypothesised bipolar structure is examining by rst, an examination of the LSQ scale correlation coecient matrix; and second, by means of EFA using maximum-likelihood analysis
followed by oblimin rotation. The psychometric requirement for achieving two zero-correlated
bi-polar measures (see Kirton, 1994) would be for each of the four style scales to be negatively
correlated with one other scale and zero correlated with the two remaining scales.
Considering the EFA, principal components were used: rst, because this method yields component scores that have the same correlation coecients as the rotated factors; and second, as
component analysis does not unduly capitalise on sampling error as the price for estimating
measuring error (Thompson & Daniel, 1996). A further consideration is to determine the number
of factors to be extracted. Thompson and Daniel (1996) recommend employing a number of different methods to select factors. Accordingly, the present study uses eigenvalues-greater-than-one
rule (Kaiser, 1960), scree tests (Cattell, 1978) and parallel analysis techniques (Horn, 1965).
Separate CFAs were conducted on responses by students from the two groups of business and
health studies. The generalizability and stability of the two-factor and four-factor model is evaluatedfollowing Marshs (1994) recommendationsby comparing the t of three models: total
non-invariance (where no parameter estimates were constrained to be equal across groups), factor
parameters invariant (where only factor parameters were constrained to be equal across groups)
and total invariance (where all parameter estimates were constrained to be equal across groups).

152

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Educational attainment is generally believed to be a function of the learning environment, the

ability of the student and the individuals learning style. Therefore it could be expected that students with a preference for particular learning activities would outperform those with preferences
for other learning activities. To evaluate the relationship between learning style and performance,
a structural equation model was constructed for both the health studies students and business
studies students using AMOS v4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999). Each model treats the four learning style
dimensions as observed exogenous predictor variables and academic performance as the observed
endogenous variable. Academic performance is proxied: for health studies students by a percentage grade in a healthcare module (scores ranging from 19 to 79%; mean=58.0%; S.D.=9.4%),
and for business students by a percentage grade in an accounting module (scores ranging from 21
to 68%; mean=47.8%; S.D.=10.1%).2

3. Results
Alpha coecients were calculated for the scores on the four LSQ scales. The coecients indicate the scores produced by the LSQ have only modest internal consistency reliability: Activist,
0.681; Reector, 0.731; Theorist, 0.577; Pragmatist, 0.516. Item analysis of each scale removed 26
items, on a one-by-one basis, in total (four from Reector, 11 from Theorist, 11 from Pragmatist)
that failed to improve the homogeneity of the scale to which they were assigned by the authors of
the LSQ. This item attrition failed to raise the scales to a level of minimum integrity of 0.70
suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994): Activist, 0.671; Reector, 0.750; Theorist, 0.661;
Pragmatist, 0.638. The results of the item attrition exercise are shown in the appendix and compared to the results of De Ciantis and Kirton (1996).
Before item analysis, the combined 40-item ActivistReector scale yielded an alpha coecient
of 0.789. Item analysis of the combined ActivistReector scale created a 27-item scale (
=0.817;

Table 2
Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) scale correlation matrix
Scale
Scale
Activist (A)
Pragmatist (P)
Reector (R)
Theorist (T)
AR
TP

0.219 *
0.480 *
0.269 *

0.038

0.082
0.415 *

T
0.464 *
0.023

0.499 *

AR

TP

0.220 *

0.099

0.105
0.573 *
0.148 *

The upper triangle represents scales after item analysis. The lower triangle represents original LSQ scale scores before
the scales were re-dened. *P< 0.01
2
Like most measures of academic performance the data suers from a restriction of range. Also, academic performance is proxied by the results of only one module. However, the investigation benets from an analysis of two distinct
samples.

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

153

Appendix). Combining TheoristPragmatist into a single 40-item scale, produced an alpha of

0.689, and after item analysis this increased to 0.766 (16 items).
Table 2 reports the correlation coecient matrix of the four learning styles of the LSQ, both
prior to and after item analysis. As hypothesised, Activist is highly negatively correlated with
Reector (prior to item analysis, r= 0.48; after item analysis, r= 0.46). However, Activist is
also positively correlated with Pragmatist and Theorist.
Theorist is highly correlated with Pragmatist (prior to item analysis, r=0.42; after item analysis, r=0.57). Not only is the correlation coecient in the opposite direction to that expected in
theory, as Theorist and Pragmatist are considered opposites, it is of a high magnitude. Prior to
item analysis a stronger relationship exists between Theorist and Reector (r=0.50). However,
after item analysis, the TheoristReector relationship is attenuated (r=0.15). Prior to item
analysis, Activist-Pragmatist and Theorist Reector are positively correlated (r=0.22); however
after item analysis this is negligible (r=0.10). We conclude, after the item attrition exercise, the
LSQ scale correlation matrix provides some evidence, albeit mixed, to support the two dimensions of prehension and transformation.
The results of the EFA are shown in Table 3. Principal component analysis using the eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule, extracted 27 factors (accounting for 62.51% of the total variance);
parallel analysis extracted nine factors (accounting for 34.59% of the total variance) and scree
tests extracted ve factors (accounting for 25.77% of the total variance). Evidence exists to show
that the scree test is more accurate than the eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion when both are
tested on articially generated sample data (Zwick & Velicer, 1982, 1986). The results of the scree
test are shown in Fig. 1. Factor 1 consisted of 24 items with item coecients greater than 0.25,

Fig. 1. EFA Scree Test.

154

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Table 3
Factor structure matrix
Item

Scale

Factor
I

15
16
46
60
25
28
2
56
66
29
57
31
35
38
67
48
10
74
34
7
75
70
73
41
42
68
65
14
12
35
27
61
54
80
49
47
5
22
77
8
20
19
1
30

Reector
Reector
Reector
Reector
Reector
Reector
Activist
Pragmatist
Reector
Reector
Theorist
Reector
Pragmatist
Activist
Reector
Activist
Activist
Activist
Activist
Reector
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Reector
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Theorist
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Theorist

0.577
0.549
0.516
0.496
0.474
0.472
0.457
0.415
0.409
0.382
0.363
0.329
0.282
0.339
0.300
0.391
0.271
0.288
0.340
0.330
0.255
0.253
0.305
0.316

II

III

IV

0.338

0.322
0.322

0.441

0.567
0.554
0.500
0.494
0.470
0.470
0.421
0.415
0.405
0.380
0.360
0.349
0.347
0.319
0.319
0.343
0.367
0.307
0.251
0.339

0.319

0.375

0.340

.481
0.403
0.345
0.541
0.444
0.392
0.318

0.284

0.257

0.291

0.277

0.526
0.523
0.424

(continued on next page)

155

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Table 3 (continued)
Item

Scale

Factor
I

Item
Scale
67
Reector
62
Reector
58
Activist
43
Activist
48
Activist
23
Activist
10
Activist
72
Activist
11
Pragmatist
8
Theorist
79
Activist
32
Activist
17
Activist
4
Activist
71
Activist
45
Activist
64
Activist
40
Activist
6
Activist
24
Activist
69
Pragmatist
63
Theorist
21
Pragmatist
18
Theorist
78
Theorist
50
Pragmatist
51
Theorist
59
Pragmatist
44
Pragmatist
37
Pragmatist
38
Activist
% Variance Explained

II
I

III

II

IV

III
0.674
0.650
0.611
0.572
0.561
0.516
0.508
0.461
0.429
0.374
00.357
0.320

IV

7.23%

4.99%

0.329
0.483
0.403
0.378
0.368
0.367
0.351
0.345
0.260
0.269

7.59%

3.04%

0.585
0.545
0.541
0.490
0.487
0.456
0.453
0.449
0.350
0.346
0.250
2.92%

Principal components analysis; oblimin rotation; factor structure matrix coecients less than 0.25 omitted.

with 19 items from the combined ActivistReector dimension, item 10 from the Activist scale
was negatively correlated with the factor. Factor 2 consisted of 19 item coecients greater than
0.25, with all items from the TheoristPragmatist dimension. However, three items (1, 19 and 20)
were negatively correlated with the factor. Factor three, consisted of 19 items, with 13 items from
the ActivistReector dimension negatively correlated with the factor. Of the residual six items,
ve were from the TheoristPragmatist scale and were all positively correlated with the factor.
The remaining item from the third identied factor was from the Activist scale and positively
correlated with the factor. The fourth identied factor consisted of 15 items. Eleven items were
from the Activist scaleeach negatively correlated with the factor. Of the residual four items,

156

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

two were from the Reector scale and again, negatively correlated with the factor. Factor ve
consisted of 18 items with factor structure matrix coecients greater than 0.25. Fifteen items in
this identied factor lie within the PragmatistTheorist dimension and each was positively correlated with the factor.
Considering the results of the EFA along with the analysis of the LSQ scale correlation matrix,
only limited evidence exists to support the hypothesised two learning dimensions and four learning styles. The descriptive statistics and results of the conrmatory factor analyses are shown in
Table 4. The t indices for both the two-factor and four-factor model indicates that the data are a
poor t to the two hypothesised learning dimensions and four learning styles. Fit indices are
shown for both the two-factor and four-factor models after item analysis. Inspection of the t
indices after the item attrition exercise indicates both models estimated still failed to t the data.
The results of the tests of factorial invariance are shown in Table 5. For both analyses, the t
indices of the total invariance models were worse than the t indices for the models with invariant
factor parameter estimates that were worse than t indices for the models with no invariance
constraints across the two groups. In both cases, models constraining all parameters to be the
same across the two groups of students had poor t indices.
Table 4
Conrmatory Factor Analyses of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ)
Model

Alpha

Mean

S.D.

No. Items

One-factor model
0.783
48.436
8.510
80
w2=11470.967; d.f.=3161; w2/df=3.629; TLI=0.278; RNI=0.288; AGFI=0.539
Two-factor model
ActivistReector
0.789
25.204
5.790
40
PragmatistTheorist
0.689
23.232
5.092
40
w2=6422.316; df=3082; w2/df=2.084; TLI=0.346; RNI=0.362; AGFI=0.633
Two-factor model after item analysis
ActivistReector
0.817
18.186
5.016
27
PragmatistTheorist
0.769
8.601
3.622
16
w2=2261.967; d.f.=819; w2/df=2.762; TLI=0.461; RNI=0.487; AGFI=0.739
Four-factor model
Activist
0.681
10.55
Pragmatist
0.516
11.79
Reector
0.731
14.66
Theorist
0.577
11.44
w2=6358.546; d.f.=3077; w2/d.f.=2.066; TLI=0.357;

3.46
20
2.91
20
3.39
20
3.07
20
RNI=0.374; AGFI=0.642

Four-factor model after item analysis

Activist
0.681
10.55
3.46
20
Pragmatist
0.638
4.76
2.11
9
Reector
0.750
11.56
3.22
16
Theorist
0.661
4.79
2.24
9
w2=3238.583; d.f.=1373; w2/d.f.=2.359; TLI=0.421; RNI=0.444; AGFI=0.725
TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; RNI, Relative Noncentrality Index; AGFI, Adjusted-Goodness of Fit Index.

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

157

Table 5
Two-group Analyses of Invariance for Business and Health Studies Students
Model

w2

d.f.

w2/df

AGFI

RNI

TLI

Two-factor model
2gp (no inv)
2gp ( inv)
2gp (tot inv)

10531.673
10733.557
11026.942

6164
6239
6319

1.709
1.720
1.745

0.564
0.563
0.561

0.245
0.224
0.187

0.226
0.213
0.187

Four-factor model
2gp (no inv)
2gp ( inv)
2gp (tot inv)

10339.496
10554.325
12056.621

6154
6219
6353

1.680
1.697
1.898

0.585
0.578
0.513

0.277
0.251
0.015

0.257
0.239
0.020

TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; RNI, Relative Noncentrality Index; AGFI, Adjusted-Goodness of Fit Index.

Fig. 2. Business studies students learning styles and academic performance.

158

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

The standardised estimates of the SEM for the sample of business students is shown in Fig. 2.
The squared multiple correlation between academic performance (the observed endogenous
variable) and the four learning styles (the observed exogenous variables) is 0.09, indicating 9% of
academic performance is accounted for by its predictors (learning style dimensions). Examining
the standardised regression weights, the strongest positive predictor variable is Theorist with a
weight of 0.18. Notably, both Pragmatist and Reector have negative standardised regression
weights of 0.28 and 0.23, respectively.
Fig. 3 displays the results of the standardised estimates of the SEM for the sample of 145 health
studies students. The squared multiple correlation between the observed exogenous predictor
variables (learning style dimensions) and observed endogenous variable (academic performance)
is 0.04, indicating only 4% of academic performance is accounted for by its predictors (learning
style dimensions). Examining the standardised regression weights, the strongest weight is between
the Pragmatist scale and academic performance (0.18). The standardised regression weights for
the Activist and Theorist scales are negligible at 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.

Fig. 3. Health studies students learning styles and academic performance.

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

159

Comparing the path diagramsshown in Figs. 2 and 3for the business students and the
health studies students respectively, reveals a number of signicant dierences. Considering the
relationship between the observed exogenous predictor variables (learning style dimensions) and
the observed endogenous variable, the strongest predictor is Pragmatist. However, the standardised regression weight for the health studies is 0.18 and for the business students, 0.27. The
strongest positive standardised regression weight between the predictor variable and academic
performance for the business students is Theorist (0.18). Theorist is a poor predictor of academic
performance amongst the health studies students with a standardised regression weight of only
0.05. An analysis of the correlation coecients between the learning style dimensions shown in
Figs. 2 and 3 reveals a number of signicant dierences. Notably, the highest correlation between
the learning style dimensions for the health studies students is between Reector and Pragmatist
(r=0.50); for business studies students this relationship is negligible (r= 00.03).
Other notable dierences include: ActivistPragmatist (business r=0.22, health studies
r= 0.21); ReectorTheorist (business r=0.41, health studies r=0.08); and ActivistTheorist
(business r= 0.17, health studies r=0.27). In summary, evidence exists to: rst, suggest the
relationship between learning style dimensions is dierent between the sample of business students and health studies students; second, indicate that learning style is only a weak predictor of
academic performance; and third, that the learning style predictors of academic performance are
dierent between the samples of business and health studies students.

4. Conclusion
Results from the multi-analytical research techniques used in the present study with higher
education students from two dierent faculties and undertaking study in two dierent delivery
modes indicate that the scores produced by the LSQ have limited reliability and validity for this
population and that the LSQs multidimensional structure is not invariant across faculty groups.
Although an item pruning exercise improved the internal consistency reliability evidence, three
(of the four) scales failed to meet a level of minimum internal integrity. The results of the CFAs
on both the two-factor and four-factor models after the item analysis, indicated a poor t to the
data. In summary, no evidence is found for the four learning styles or two bipolar dimensions
hypothesised by Honey and Mumford (1992). Our study indicates even after modication the
LSQ cannot be safely used with samples of UK undergraduate students.
The use of CFA as a technique, along with supplemental analyses of the invariance of the
parameter estimate across multiple groups, extends the psychometric research surrounding the
instrument. Our study supports the EFAs of De Ciantis and Kirton (1996) sampling UK and Eire
managers.
A further issue concerning the LSQ is that the four learning styles are orthogonal to one
another; that is a person may score high on one and low on the others, or high or low all four. A
problem arises with individuals who have only low or moderate preferences for any particular
learning style, implying a low level of preference for any form learning as conceived by Kolbs
ELM. Explanations for this could include that the instrument is not sucient to identify students
dominant learning style or they do not interact with the learning model of higher education. De
Ciantis and Kirton (1996) contend that the level (abilities) in which individuals engage in each

160

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

stage of the learning process (the learning cycle) is unrelated to their learning style and their
eectiveness in completing all or part of the process, each of which should be assessed separately.
Despite the measurement problems surrounding the LSQ (and LSI/LSI-1985), Kolbs ELM has
been applied in schools, colleges and universities and in vocational education as well as in management development, where it has gained unquestioned status at the core of the professions
pedagogical apparatus (Reynolds, 1997). One of the reasons Kolbs work has caught on so dramatically is that the research on which it is based suggests that persons who choose one or
another occupational eld tend strongly to share that learning style. This is useful knowledge for
those who are interested in career choice and pedagogy in professional elds. Hopkins (1993)
identies a profound dierence between measured experience and lived experiencea dierence
that makes Kolbs formulation so deeply problematic. Nelsen and Grinder (1985) identify the
fundamental problem with Kolbs ELM as the failure to untangle experience from learning and
structure from process. Although Kolb has developed measures of the four learning styles,
thereby operationally distinguishing the structures, no method or operation for investigating the
processes underlying these structures is presented.
In conclusion, it is suggested that the LSQ is based on a model (the ELM) which is not suciently sophisticated to describe the learning that takes place in higher education. The LSQ is
dened in terms of a management trainees learning rather than that of a student in higher education. Caution should be employed if adopting the LSQ to select appropriate instructional
methods or to categorise individual students. The ndings indicate the LSQ is not a suitable
alternative to either the LSI or LSI-1985.

Appendix. Revised scale items after item analysis

ActivistReector

TheoristPragmatist

Present study

DeCiantis and
Kirton (1996)

Present study

De Ciantis and
Kirton (1996)

2
3
4
6
7
10
13
15
16
17

5
8

5
8
11

15
16
17

12
14
21
26
27
30
35

27
35
(continued on next page)

161

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Appendix. (continued)

ActivistReector
Present study

TheoristPragmatist
DeCiantis and
Kirton (1996)

Present study

24
25
28
29
31
32
34

42

38
39
40
41
43
45
46
48
52
55
58

70

23
25
28
29
31
34
36
39
41
43
45
46
48
55
58
60
62
66
67
72
74
79
27 items;
=0.82

62
64
66
67
71
72
74
79
36 items;
=0.88

54
61
65
68

De Ciantis and
Kirton (1996)
37
42
47
54
56
61

69
70
73

77
80

16 items;
=0.77

15 items;
=0.69

References
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1988). The Learning Styles Questionnaire: An alternative to Kolbs Inventory? Journal of
Management Studies, 25, 269281.
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1990). Validity of the learning styles questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 67, 859866.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos users guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

162

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A Primer of LISREL: basic applications and programming for conrmatory factor analytic models.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientic use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum Press.
Cornwell, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative measures data: a
response to Saville & Wilson (1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 89100.
De Ciantis, S. M., & Kirton, M. J. (1996). A psychometric reexamination of Kolbs experiential learning cycle construct: a separation of level, style and process. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 809820.
Dunlap, W. P., & Cornwell, J. M. (1994). Factor analysis of ipsative measures. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 29,
115126.
Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1978). What can one learn from the Learning Styles Inventory? Academy of Management Journal, 21, 275282.
Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1980). Learning Styles Inventory: less than meets the eye. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 445447.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Dierences,
13, 429438.
Furnham, A. (1996). The FIRO-B, the Learning Style Questionnaire and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Social
Behaviour and Personality, 11, 285299.
Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., & Miller, T. (1999). Personality, learning style and work performance. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 27, 11131122.
Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: a study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Dierences, 19, 197220.
Geiger, M. A., Boyle, E. J., & Pinto, J. (1992). A factor analysis of Kolbs Revised Learning Styles Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 753759.
Geiger, M. A., Boyle, E. J., & Pinto, J. (1993). An examination of ipsative and normative versions of Kolbs revised
Learning Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 717726.
Geller, L. (1979). Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory. Psychology Reports, 44, 555561.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Hopkins, R. (1993). David Kolbs Experiential Learning Machine. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 21, 4662.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179185.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
equation modeling (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, C. J., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the overlap between personality and learning styles. Personality
and Individual Dierences, 20, 293300.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 141151.
Kirton, M. (1994). Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem solving (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.
Lewin, K. (1936). The principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Loo, R. (1999). Conrmatory factor analyses of Kolbs Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 213219.
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Conrmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach. Structural
Equation Modeling, 1, 534.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of t indices: a clarication of mathematical and
empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques, 4 (pp. 5998). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1997). Is more ever too much: the number of indicators per factor in
conrmatory factor analysis, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1999). Conrmatory factor analysis: strategies for small sample sizes. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 251284). Newbury Park, CA : Sage.

A. Du, T. Duy / Personality and Individual Dierences 33 (2002) 147163

163

McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-t. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247255.
Mulaik, S. A. (1987). A brief history of the philosophical foundations of exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 22, 267305.
Myers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1962). Myers-Briggs indicator. C.A: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
Nelsen, E. A., & Grinder, R. E. (1985). Toward an ex cathedra doctrine of learning. Contemporary Psychology, 30,
622623.
Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two quick and easy methods of assessing individual dierences in student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299312.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: a critique. Management Learning, 28, 115133.
Ruble, T. L., & Stout, D. E. (1993). Comments on the use of the LSI in research on student performance in accounting
education. Accounting Educators Journal, 5, 3545.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Straw, & L. L. Cumings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior, 2. Greenwich, C.T: JAI Press.
Sims, R. R., Veres, G. G., & Shake, I. G. (1989). An exploratory examination of the convergence between the Learning
Style Questionnaire and the Learning Style Inventory II. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 227233.
Stout, D. (1991a). E, Ruble, T. L. A reexamination of accounting students learning styles. Journal of Accounting Education, 9, 341354.
Stout, D. E., & Ruble, T. L. (1991b). The LSI and accounting education research: a cautionary view and suggestions
for future research. Issues in Accounting Education, 6, 4152.
Tepper, B. J., Tetrault, L. A., Braun, C. K., & Romero, J. E. (1993). Discriminant and convergent validity of the
problem solving style questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 437444.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: a historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197208.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coecient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38,
110.
Willcoxon, L., & Prosser, M. (1996). Kolbs Learning Style Inventory (1985): review and further study of validity and
reliability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 247257.
Yahya, I. (1998). Willcoxon and Prossers factor analyses on Kolbs (1985) LSI data: reections and re-analyses. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 281286.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors inuencing ve rules for determining the number of components to
retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 253269.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of ve rules for determining the number of components to retain.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432442.