An examination of the dimensionalities and common constructs of selected adult cognitive learning style instruments

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHardy, Christopher R.en
dc.contributor.committeechairWiswell, Albert K.en
dc.contributor.committeememberStubblefield, Harold W.en
dc.contributor.committeememberMcKeen, Ronald L.en
dc.contributor.committeememberLichtman, Marilyn V.en
dc.contributor.committeememberBeck, Alan W.en
dc.contributor.departmentAdult and Continuing Educationen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:19:01Zen
dc.date.adate2008-09-19en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:19:01Zen
dc.date.issued1995-04-05en
dc.date.rdate2008-09-19en
dc.date.sdate2008-09-19en
dc.description.abstractThough a widespread advocacy exists for the use of learning style instruments in adult education, accurate measurement and interpretation using existing instrumentation have proven problematic. Additionally, relatively little attempt has been made to empirically reconcile the different theoretical and conceptual frameworks underlying these instruments. The purpose of this study was to examine the dimensionality, reliability, and construct validity of a cognitive learning style semantic differential instrument, the Cognitive Preference Pattern Indicator (CPPI), and at the same time to examine three instruments commonly used with adults for assessing cognitive learning style, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Success Style Profile (SSP), and the Gregorc Style Delineator, with respect to factor structure and shared learning style constructs. Over 1900 protocols from 1411 adults were used in the analyses. The examination of the CPPI produced clearly acceptable internal reliability coefficients on all scales and relatively strong evidence of construct validity in the internal and comparative factor analyses. Separate internal factor structures were examined for each instrument. Though not all of the other instruments' internal structures completely supported their respective theoretical bases, enough internal structures emerged for an analysis of common constructs. A combined factor analysis of the four instruments yielded a robust three factor solution which was consistent with an information processing model framework for clearly describing individual differences in regard to cognitive learning styles. The clear relationships of this model revealed strong empirical support to the theoretical bases of the CPPI and offered the adult education community a simple, valid, and profound conceptualization of cognitive learning styles.en
dc.description.degreePh. D.en
dc.format.extentxi, 205 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-09192008-063044en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09192008-063044/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/39395en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V856_1995.H373.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 32878179en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjecteducational measurement instrumentsen
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V856 1995.H373en
dc.titleAn examination of the dimensionalities and common constructs of selected adult cognitive learning style instrumentsen
dc.typeDissertationen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplineAdult and Continuing Educationen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V856_1995.H373.pdf
Size:
10.39 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Doctoral Dissertations