Accounting Education 10 (2), 185197 (2001)

RESEARCH NOTE

A note on the psychometric properties of the

Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
A NG U S DU FF *
University of Paisley, UK

Received: June 2000

Revised: December 2000; February 2001; August 2001
Accepted: August 2001

Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine some psychometric properties of Honey and Mumfords
(1992 The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey) Learning Styles Questionnaire
(LSQ) and therefore its potential utility for accounting education research. Prior research in other
cognate disciplines (managers; US business undergraduates) suggests that the LSQ may be
preferable to Kolbs Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and Revised LSI. However, little measurement
information exists regarding the application of the LSQ in higher education. The present study uses
samples of undergraduate accounting students (N 5 127) at a UK university. Evidence of only
modest internal consistency reliability is reported. The construct validity of the scores produced by
the instrument is not supported by the results of the present study. Limitations and implications for
the use of the LSQ by accounting education researchers are discussed.
Keywords: learning styles questionnaire, learning styles, experiential learning model, reliability,
validity

Introduction
Research on learning styles
A considerable literature exists on the application of learning style research to accounting
education (Wilson and Hill, 1994). A learning style is described as being:
. . . a description of the attitudes and behaviour which determine an individuals
preferred way of learning (Honey and Mumford, 1992, p. 1).
Learning style is the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, 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
differences: people perceive and gain knowledge differently, they form ideas and think
differently, and they act differently.
Research on style as an individual trait has been of interest to psychologists for many
years (Jung, 1921; Myers and Briggs, 1962). Kolbs (1976) Experiential Learning Model
(ELM), and associated instrument the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) was
* Address for correspondence: Accounting & Finance Division, Paisley Business School, University of Paisley,
Ayr Campus, Beech Grove, Ayr, KA8 0SS, Scotland. E-mail: angus.duff@paisley.ac.u k
Accounting Education
ISSN 09639284 print/ISSN 14684489 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0963928011009576 4

186

Duff

instrumental in developing educators interest in the eld. The ELM consists of a

hypothesized four-stage learning cycle and is based on the work of Lewin (1936).
According to the theory, the hypothesized learning cycle can be entered at any stage but
must be followed in sequence. Different individuals may cope better with, or prefer, some
parts of the learning cycle to others.
Allinson and Hayes (1988) point out that an individuals learning orientation is possibly
the most important determinant of that individuals educational attainment. For this reason,
considerable research has been undertaken in recent years to diagnose learning style
preferences (Reynolds, 1997). Identifying the characteristics of individual students is seen
as a potential way of improving course design and an individuals learning outcomes
(Butler, 1988).
Learning styles and accounting education
Kolbs (1976) LSI has been widely applied to measure student learning style. Later
research questioned the validity of the LSI using a testretest design (Stout and Ruble,
1991a), by undertaking a psychometric evaluation (Stout and Ruble, 1991b), and by
identifying similar problems with a later version of the instrument, the LSI-1985 (Kolb,
1985). These problems are summarized in: Geiger et al., 1992, 1993; Ruble and Stout,
1993; Stout and Ruble, 1994. Critics of the application of Kolbs LSI maintain that its
application for accounting education research purposes was premature in the sense that the
instruments psychometric properties had not been suf ciently assessed.
Honey and Mumfords (1992) LSQ has been proposed as an alternative to Kolbs LSI.
Prudent scholarship requires that the LSQ be subjected to critical analysis before it is used
for correlation studies and as the basis for making policy recommendations in accounting
education. Signi cantly, the only evidence that exists in this regard is both outside
education and obtained from students other than those at a university level. If the LSQ is
to be useful in accounting education research, then prudent scholarship indicates that the
measurement properties of the instrument should be established using data from this
context. This paper responds to this need by reporting some psychometric properties of the
LSQ using a sample of UK accounting students. The next part of this paper describes the
LSQ and reports psychometric evidence regarding LSQ data. The paper then reports the
results of the present study and concludes with a discussion of the implications of this
research for accounting education researchers.
Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
The LSQ is designed to assess the relative strengths of four different learning styles:
Activist, Re ector, Theorist, and Pragmatist.1 As the instrument is based on Kolbs ELM
it could also be expected to identify two orthogonal dimensions of learning proposed by
Kolb (1976). These two orthogonal dimensions are achieved by combining the four styles
into two bipolar dimensions. The two dimensions are said to indicate the extent to which
the individual emphasizes theory over a pragmatic approach (TheoristPragmatist),
1

These four styles correspond approximately to those suggested by Kolbs (1976) ELM: Active Experimentation (Activist), Re ective Observation (Re ector), Abstract Conceptualisation (Theorist), and Concrete
Experience (Pragmatist).

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

187

labelled prehension, and the extent to which an individual emphasizes action over
re ection (ActivistRe ector), labelled transformation. The prehension dimension refers
to the grasping of information from experience, through direct contact, with an emphasis
on intuitive qualities, whilst the transformation dimension describes the transformation of
information through internal re ection. According to Honey and Mumford (1992):
(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)

Activists can be thought of as open-minded and enthusiastic about anything new;

they tend to act rst and consider consequences later. They enjoy the challenge of
new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer-term consolidation. They are gregarious individuals who involve themselves with others but, in
doing so, seek to centre activities around themselves.
Re ectors prefer to ponder on experiences and observe them from a number of
different perspectives. They collect and analyse data about experiences and events
in a thorough way to postpone reaching a conclusion for as long as possible. They
are cautious, thoughtful people who like to consider all possible implications
before making a decision.
Theorists try to adapt and integrate experiences and observations into logical,
complex theories. They tend to be detached and analytical and are uncomfortable
with anything subjective or ambiguous.
Pragmatists are said to enjoy trying out new ideas, theories, and techniques to see
if they work in practice. They are practical, down-to-earth individuals who like
making practical decisions and solving problems.

The LSQ is a self-administered inventory consisting of 80 items with which respondents

are asked to agree or disagree. The vast majority of these items are behavioural. (That is,
they describe an action that someone might or might not take.) Occasionally, an item
probes a preference or belief rather than a manifest behaviour. Examples of items
include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

On balance I talk more than I can listen (Activist)

I tend to discuss speci c things with people rather than engaging in social
discussion (Re ector)
I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories underpinning things and events (Theorist)
I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done (Pragmatist)

The LSQ is scored by awarding one point for each ticked item (see Honey and
Mumford,1992 for further information on scoring procedures).2 Respondents may be
classi ed as adopting a particular learning style preference, with a respondents preference
being classi ed according to the highest score obtained on individual scales using Honey
and Mumfords (1992) published norms. 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 (see for example, Packwood and Sinclair
Taylor, 1995; Ibbetson and Newell 1996; Kennington et al., 1996; Sangster, 1996).
2

By comparison, Kolbs LSI (1976, 1985) employs a forced choice selection for each of 12 sets of four
words.

188

Duff

Prior psychometric evidence regarding the LSQ

Internal consistency reliability
Internal consistency reliability is an estimate of reliability based on the average correlation
among items within a test, (that is, the extent to which the items within the test (or scale)
are measuring the same thing). The most commonly accepted measure of internal
consistency reliability is coef cient alpha (Hinkin, 1995). Coef cient alpha (Cronbach,
1951) estimates the degree of internal consistency of scores produced by the instrument by
comparing scores on its constituent parts or items with the variance of their total scores on
the entire instrument.
A study by Sims et al. (1989), using a sample of 279 business students at two US
universities, reported modest internal consistency reliability estimates for the scores
produced by the LSQ, with alpha coef cients of 0.68 for the Activist and Re ector scales,
0.75 for the Pragmatist scale and 0.78 for the Theorist scale. Allinson and Hayes (1988),
administering the LSQ to a sample of 127 UK managers and to a sample of 40 managers
from Africa and India (enrolled on a one-year MBA programme at a UK university),
reported moderate internal consistency reliability for a combined Theorist and Pragmatist
scale (equivalent to Kolbs prehension dimension) with alpha coef cients of 0.74 and 0.63
for the two samples respectively, and 0.58 and 0.71 for the combined Activist and
Re ector scale (equivalent to Kolbs transformation dimension) for the two samples
respectively. 3 Fung et al. (1993), using a sample of Hong Kong undergraduate students and
employing a 40-item short form of the LSQ, report relatively low internal consistency
reliability estimates, with alpha coef cients ranging from a low of 0.31 for Pragmatist to
a high of 0.42 for Re ector.4 Administering the LSQ to a sample of 227 undergraduate
business students at a US university, Tepper et al. (1993) report alpha coef cients ranging
from 0.52 for the Pragmatist scale to a high of 0.76 for the Re ector scale. De Ciantis and
Kirton (1996), using a sample of 185 British and Irish managers, report similar alpha
coef cients ranging from a low of 0.64 for the Pragmatist scale to a high of 0.76 for both
the Activist and Re ector scales. These results are summarized in Table 1. In summary,
prior research nds the scores produced by the LSQ as having moderate to satisfactory
internal consistency reliability.
Construct validity
If an instrument produces scores of demonstrable construct validity, then we can be
con dent that it will assess the particular attribute, ability or construct that it claims to
measure. As such, the demonstration of construct validity can be thought of as the ultimate
aim of instruments developed for use in the social sciences. Data produced by the LSQ to
3

Combining scales has the effect of in ating the resulting internal consistency estimates. Consequently, the
alpha coef cients calculated for the combined scales are not directly comparable with the alpha coef cients
calculated for each of the four scales. Assuming items within the combined scales are similar in content and
reliability, we can estimate the alpha coef cient for an equivalent 20-item combined scale (Nunnally, 1978). For
Allinson and Hayes (1990) two samples, this yields relatively low alpha coef cients of 0.59 and 0.46 for a
20-item equivalent combined Theorist and Pragmatist scale, and 0.41 and 0.56 for the 20-item equivalen t
combined Activist and Re ector scale.
4
Fung et al.s (1993) reported alpha coef cients are signi cantly lower than other published results as a result
of using four 10-item scales, rather than four 20-item scales. As noted previously, increasing the number of
items in a scale will assuming items are similar in content and reliability in ate the calculated alpha
coef cient (Nunnally, 1978).

189

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

Table 1. Summary of internal consistency reliability estimates reporting in previous research
Coef cienta
Study

Subjects

Allinson and Hayes

(1988)

UK managers

127

0.58

0.74

40

0.71

0.63

African and Indian

managers
Sims et al. (1989)
US business students
Fung et al. (1993)
Hong Kong
undergraduate students
Tepper et al. (1993) US undergraduate
students
De Ciantis and Kirton British and Irish
(1996)
managers

Activist

Re ector

Theorist

Pragmatist

270
381

0.68
0.39

0.68
0.42

0.78
0.33

0.75
0.31

227

0.75

0.76

0.67

0.52

185

0.76

0.76

0.67

0.64

demonstrate construct validity needs to measure Kolbs hypothesized four stages of

learning and two (bipolar) dimensions of style. Construct validity is typically assessed by
correlating test scores with some reputable test known to measure the same characteristic,
or by using a data reduction technique such as factor analysis. Factor analysis and
construct validity have long been associated with each other. As Nunnally (1978, p. 112)
notes: (f)actor analysis is at the heart of the measurement of psychological constructs.
Considering the LSQ, Allinson and Hayes (1988) factor analysed scores of the four
learning style scales (as opposed to scores on the individual items) to yield two orthogonal
factors, referred to above. Subsequent studies of UK undergraduate management students
(Allinson and Hayes, 1990) con rmed the dual-factor structure. To psychometrically
support a bipolar structure of style (see Kirton, 1994) scores on each of the four scales
would be highly negatively correlated with one other scale and zero correlated with the
remaining two scales. Studying British and Irish managers, De Ciantis and Kirton (1996)
report a substantial negative correlation between the Activist and Re ector scales
(r 5 2 0.59), and a large positive correlation between the Theorist and Pragmatist scales
(r 5 0.39). The De Ciantis and Kirton (1996) study also found correlation coef cients of
greater magnitude for TheoristRe ector (r 5 0.50) and for TheoristActivist (r 5 2 0.43),
ndings which do not support Kolbs hypothesized bipolar style dimensions of prehension
and transformation. In summary, the results of previous studies nd only limited evidence
for a dual-factor structure.
Extant psychometric evidence: the LSQ
In summary, evidence exists to suggest scores produced by the LSQ have modest internal
consistency reliability. Less psychometric evidence exists as to the validity of the scores
produced by the instrument. The objective of this study is to provide accounting education
researchers with evidence of the measurement qualities of the LSQ. Speci cally, evidence
is provided on the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the scores
produced by the LSQ. This evidence was obtained from two separate administrations of
the instrument to samples of UK business students, majoring in accounting.

190

Duff

Sample
Respondents were 127 undergraduate students majoring in accounting at a UK university.
The sample consisted of 29 rst year (14 male; 15 female), 29 second year (12 male; 17
female), and 69 third year (33 male; 36 female) students. At the start of the academic year,
students were asked to complete Honey and Mumfords LSQ. Participation was entirely
voluntary and students were asked to complete the instrument during class time.
Analysis and results
Table 2 reports the intercorrelations among the four LSQ scales. Activist was found to be
negatively correlated with Re ector. Theorist was found to be positively correlated with
Pragmatist and Re ector. These results are similar to the ndings of Allinson and Hayes
(1990, 1988). For Kolbs (1976) hypothesized dual-factor structure to exist, negative
correlations are expected between the Activist and Re ector scales and between the
Theorist and Pragmatist scales, with low to zero correlations between Activist and
Re ector scales and Theorist and Pragmatist scales. The results of the present study
notably the positive correlation between the Theorist and Pragmatist dimensions reject
Kolbs (1976) suggestion of two bipolar style dimensions.
Table 2. Pearson correlation coef cients: scales of LSQ

Activist
Pragmatist
Re ector
* p,

Pragmatist

Re ector

Theorist

0.206*

0.464**
0.079

0.204*
0.412**
0.477**

0.01 (two-tailed test); ** p ,

0.001 (two-tailed test)

Evidence of the internal consistency reliability of the scores produced by the LSQ is
presented in Table 3, with alpha coef cients ranging from a low of 0.52 for Pragmatist to
a high of 0.74 for Activist. Although adequate for instruments in early stages of research,
these reliabilities can be considered low for widely-used instruments in applied settings,
such as the LSQ. (Nunnally, 1978 and Carmines and Zeller, 1979 recommend reliabilities
in excess of 0.8 for such measures.) The number of valid responses for this analysis varied
widely from n 5 87 for Pragmatist to n 5 126 for Activist because of the presence of
missing data. The high degree of missing data for Pragmatist may suggest that many of the
Table 3. Internal consistency reliability estimates
for the LSQ
Scale

N*

Coef cient

Activist
Pragmatist
Re ector
Theorist

126
87
124
97

0.71
0.52
0.73
0.63

Calculated alpha coef cients are equivalent to coef cient

KR-20 (Norusis, 1994).
* Responses vary because of missing data.

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

191

accounting undergraduate students felt some of the items in this scale did not relate to their
experience of higher education.5
De Ciantis and Kirton (1996) in their psychometric investigation of the LSQ attempted
to improve the internal consistency reliability of the scores produced by the instrument by
removing items that failed to contribute to the homogeneity of the scale to which they were
originally assigned by Honey and Mumford. However, none of the six items with a high
proportion of missing data in the present study are included in the nine items removed
from the 20-item Pragmatist scale by De Ciantis and Kirton (1996). As the De Ciantis and
Kirton study used a sample of managers with some years of experience, this suggests the
LSQ may be an inappropriate instrument to measure undergraduate students learning style
preferences (Kirton, 1997). Researchers considering developing other versions of the LSQ
with more satisfactory measurement properties, for use with students in accounting
education, might usefully exclude these items from a (short-form) revised LSQ.6
The 80 items in the LSQ were then subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using
principal components analysis followed by oblique rotation to allow for the correlations
among the scales. Principal components was chosen because this method yields component
scores that have the same correlation coef cients as the rotated factors and because
component analysis does not unduly capitalize on sampling error as the price for
estimating measuring error (Thompson and 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 (Kaiser, 1960), scree
tests (Cattell, 1978), and parallel analysis techniques (Horn, 1965). Principal components
analysis extracted 13 factors using parallel analysis factor extraction rules, which together
accounted for 53.1% of the total variance. The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule extracted
28 factors (accounting for 79.7% of the variance) and scree tests extracted four factors.
Notably, the eigenvalues-greater-than-one decision rule (the default on most statistical
packages) has been shown to overestimate the number of factors. Kline (1994, p. 75) notes
that the scree test is just about the best solution to selecting the correct number of factors.
Therefore, a four-factor solution is selected. A four-factor solution accounted for only
25.0% of the total variance. An examination of the structure matrix coef cients7 revealed
that items for the four scales did not produce coef cients as hypothesized, with items
within the same scale often having coef cients of opposite sign on an opposite factor.8 A
summary of the results of the factor analysis is shown in Table 4. Factor 1 consisted of 22
items with item coef cients greater than 0.4, along with 20 items from the combined
5

Items from the Pragmatist scale with missing data greater than 10% are 5, 11, 21, 27, 35, 37.
Although Honey and Mumford (1992, p. 81) speci cally recommend not excluding items with a low response
rate, this goes against generally accepted principles of scale development. Such items lack content validity (that
is, fail to capture the speci c domain of interest and represent extraneous content). Content validity can be
viewed as the minimum psychometric requirement for measurement adequacy and is the rst step in construct
validation of a new measure (Schriesheim et al., 1993).
7
The factor structure consists of the correlations of the original variables with the rotated factors. The factor
structure coef cients of a rotated factor analysis are the equivalent of the factor structure coef cients in the
unrotated factor matrix (Kline, 1994).
8
Detailed results are available from the author on request. Items 27, 38, and 44 from the Pragmatist scale and
item 53 from the Activist scale are reversed in De Ciantis and Kirtons (1996) two revised scales of the
combined TheoristPragmatist scale (15 items) and ActivistRe ector scale (45 items, including 6 items from
the Theorist scale and 2 items from the Pragmatist scale).
6

192

Duff
Table 4. Summary of results of factor analysis
Item No.

Scale

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

58
62
67
28
43
72
25
45
79
48
46
34
19
66
31
74
15
60
55
7
18
5
17
32
29
20
13
22
76
44
68
57
70
41
11
16
80
42
8
51
75
47
23
3
14
49
65

Activist
Re ector
Re ector
Re ector
Activist
Activist
Re ector
Activist
Activist
Activist
Re ector
Activist
Pragmatist
Re ector
Re ector
Activist
Re ector
Re ector
Re ector
Re ector
Theorist
Pragmatist
Activist
Activist
Re ector
Theorist
Re ector
Theorist
Re ector
Pragmatist
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Re ector
Pragmatist
Re ector
Pragmatist
Theorist
Theorist
Theorist
Theorist
Theorist
Activist
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist

0.628
0.626
0.613
0.573
0.566
0.566
0.555
0.546
0.540
0.540
0.491
0.484
0.476
0.474
0.462
0.435
0.435
0.422
0.406
0.393
0.365
0.363
0.306
0.243
0.233
0.200
0.200
0.186
0.164
0.180
0.213
0.322
0.284
0.288
0.156
0.400
0.418
0.127
0.111
0.048
0.350
0.147
0.220
0.278
0.033
0.220
0.076

0.129
0.295
0.159
0.082
0.274
0.029
0.288
0.049
0.192
0.135
0.180
0.163
0.163
0.276
0.026
0.264
0.101
0.078
0.130
0.147
0.133
0.295
0.052
0.229
0.015
0.059
0.145
0.079
0.072
0.533
0.515
0.510
0.500
0.442
0.433
0.432
0.424
0.419
0.414
0.405
0.397
0.393
0.368
0.332
0.330
0.325
0.286

0.084
0.090
0.276
0.108
0.263
0.088
0.048
0.111
0.048
0.319
0.048
0.062
0.106
0.081
0.302
0.078
0.346
0.103
0.347
0.192
0.299
0.075
0.078
0.084
0.046
0.034
0.040
0.046
0.108
0.030
0.109
0.162
0.290
0.103
0.138
0.308
0.076
0.042
0.227
0.151
0.052
0.156
0.037
0.261
0.008
0.261
0.255

0.044
0.160
0.404
0.025
0.078
0.151
0.057
0.224
0.100
0.421
0.347
0.227
0.062
0.185
0.153
0.248
0.062
0.091
0.073
0.127
0.275
0.044
0.197
0.038
0.124
0.100
0.068
0.160
0.064
0.034
0.056
0.014
0.020
0.305
0.143
0.249
0.101
0.124
0.160
0.264
0.072
0.188
0.084
0.073
0.013
0.079
0.065

193

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

Table 4. continued
Item No.

Scale

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

59
35
61
52
10
26
30
39
6
36
2
37
9
4
77
12
54
21
38
69
73
71
53
78
64
24
27
1
56
50
40
33
63

Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Re ector
Activist
Theorist
Theorist
Re ector
Activist
Re ector
Activist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Activist
Theorist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Activist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Activist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Activist
Activist
Pragmatist
Theorist
Pragmatist
Pragmatist
Activist
Re ector
Theorist

0.015
0.172
0.047
0.124
0.090
0.134
0.285
0.206
0.028
0.143
0.415
0.125
0.043
0.106
0.318
0.014
0.078
0.167
0.038
0.044
0.051
0.166
0.110
0.061
0.242
0.092
0.299
0.165
0.124
0.057
0.180
0.010
0.064

0.278
0.263
0.214
0.179
0.179
0.151
0.167
0.120
0.129
0.077
0.108
0.017
0.170
0.088
0.158
0.102
0.068
0.097
0.020
0.066
0.110
0.088
0.022
0.094
0.209
0.242
0.142
0.042
0.210
0.184
0.111
0.030
0.044

0.168
0.035
0.149
0.104
0.061
0.544
0.492
0.483
0.466
0.462
0.459
0.456
0.453
0.426
0.401
0.343
0.294
0.203
0.060
0.237
0.044
0.081
0.229
0.077
0.063
0.158
0.136
0.085
0.227
0.062
0.077
0.056
0.055

0.014
0.193
0.062
0.088
0.079
0.045
0.027
0.289
0.017
0.095
0.124
0.185
0.428
0.191
0.061
0.027
0.024
0.042
0.037
0.546
0.520
0.459
0.380
0.347
0.334
0.303
0.300
0.292
0.272
0.266
0.243
0.161
0.115

9.8%

5.9%

5.1%

4.3%

% variance accounted for

Note: Items with coef cients greater than 0.4 shown in italics

ActivistRe ector scales. Factor 2 consisted of 11 item coef cients greater than 0.4, along
with 9 items from the combined TheoristPragmatist scale. Factors 3 and 4 consist of
items from all four scales with no clear structure indicated. These results contrast with
those of De Ciantis and Kirtons (1996) study of managerial practitioners. De Ciantis and
Kirton (1996) report only the results of a factor analysis after item attrition ( i.e. of a
combined 31-item TheoristPragmatist scale along with the combined ActivistRe ector
total score included in the matrix as the 32nd variable and used as a marker). This
process created two clear orthogonal factors with Factor 1 correlated strongly with
ActivistRe ector scale (r 5 0.77) and Factor 2 being orthogonal to it (r 5 0.05). In

194

Duff

summary, the results of the factor analysis and the scale correlation matrix of the present
study nd limited evidence for construct validity of the scores produced by the
instrument.
Con rmatory factor analysis (CFA) can be thought of as a means of testing hypotheses
using factor analysis. Unlike EFA, CFA is amenable to testing rival hypotheses. To obtain
data suitable for a con rmatory factor analysis (CFA), a series of scales (item parcels) was
created from the original dichotomous scores. This is achieved by randomly dividing the
20 items for each scale into four scales, each of ve items (Marsh and Hau, 1999).9,10 Each
of the four learning styles was measured by four observed variables. In evaluating
goodness-of- t, the TuckerLewis Index (TLI) and Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) are
emphasized. 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 x 2)
and incremental t indexes, such as the TLI and RNI. Three models are tested: a fourfactor model consisting of the four hypothesized learning styles; a two-factor model
consisting of the two hypothesized bipolar dimensions, and a one-factor model for
purposes of comparison. The best t to the data was provided by the four-factor model
(x 2 5 204.540, d.f. 5 98; p , 0.000; TLI 5 0.758; RNI 5 0.803). However, both t indices
are below 0.9, a common lower limit of acceptance. The two-factor model provided an
unsatisfactory t to the data (x 2 5 172.258, d.f. 5 103; p , 0.000; TLI 5 0.693;
RNI 5 0.737). Predictably, the worst t to the data was the one-factor model
(x 2 5 204.540, d.f. 5 104; p , 0.000; TLI 5 0.559; RNI 5 0.618).
Discussion
Internal consistency reliability is reported below a level of minimum internal integrity
(Nunnally, 1978), with alpha coef cients ranging from 0.52 to 0.74. The low alpha
coef cient for the Pragmatist scale may partly be attributable to items with a high
proportion of missing data. Notably, six items on this scale had signi cant amounts of
missing data. All of these items suggest work-related activities that are given little
emphasis in accounting education, particularly in the institution chosen for this study.
Therefore, researchers considering developing versions of the LSQ appropriate for use in
higher education might usefully consider excluding these items, or replacing them with
more appropriate items, in a short-form revised LSQ.
The construct validity of the scores produced by the LSQ is not supported by the factor
structure: items did not generate factor structure matrix coef cients as predicted. Although
the best t to the data in the CFA was provided by the four-factor model, the t indices
were below conventionally accepted levels. Only limited evidence was found for the dualfactor structure hypothesized by Kolb (1976). Notably, Theorist and Pragmatist are
positively correlated (r 5 0.41) when their nomenclature logically suggest they are
opposites. However, Activist and Re ector are negatively correlated (r 5 2 0.46) and
9

The logic of item parcels is that each parcel is likely to be more strongly related to the latent factor, is less
likely to be in uenced by the idiosyncratic wording and method effects associated with individual items, and is
more likely to meet the typical assumptions of normality associated in maximum-likelihood approaches to
CFA.
10
The likelihood of CFA yielding fully proper solutions is substantially related to the number of indicator s
(items or parcels) per factor and sample size. In a Monte Carlo study, Marsh et al. (1997) reported a sample size
of 50 as being satisfactory where the number of indicators per factor equals six.

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

195

factor 1 of the EFA consists of 20 items (of 22 items) with factor pattern matrix
coef cients greater than 0.4 from the Activist and Re ector scales.
A further problem with the ELM is the emphasis on style as a personality trait.
Personality is often loosely de ned in terms of regularities in action, feelings and thoughts
that are characteristic of the individual (Snyder and Cantor, 1998). That is, there is
supposed to be a set of characteristics or traits that are stable over time. This means one
hopes to nd an accounting learning style that can help to better understand which styles
lead to success and which lead to failure. If it were possible to identify such a pro le the
needs of accounting employers could be assisted by giving them an effective selection
instrument (see for example, Atkinson et al., 1990). Furthermore, it would be possible for
those with winning learning styles to adopt an accounting career and discourage those
with failing learning styles. Such an approach has two limitations. First, such an
intervention would discourage diversity within a profession by reinforcing stereotypical
views of the profession. A second problem is that the theory and methods of the ELM, and
consequently the LSQ, are, in relation to modern psychological research, limited. The
concept of personality is not unidimensional and measured with one trait or learning
style, but multidimensional. An individuals personality is now mainly measured in ve
broad dimensions commonly called the Big Five (see, for example, Hogan et al., 1996).
Future work considering the LSQ and LSI, (1985) might consider the relationship
between learning style preferences and these ve measures of interpersonal evaluation.
The present study is not without its limitations. First, the overall sample size is relatively
low for an investigation considering the reliability and validity of scores obtained on such
an instrument. The ratio of sample size to number of items (N:p) in the EFA is relatively
small, at between 1.09 to 1.58. Whilst the N:p ratio exceeds Klines (1994, p. 175)
minimum of unity, it is considerably below that recommended by more conservative
psychometricians such as Nunnally (1978) who recommends an N:p ratio of at least 5.
Second, the sample is taken from one UK institution and may not generalize across other
institutions or cultural settings. Future work that attempts to develop more reliable forms
of the LSQ should use a larger and more comprehensive sample.
In conclusion, these preliminary ndings suggest the LSQ is based on a model (the
ELM) that is not suf ciently sophisticated to describe the learning that takes place within
accounting education. The LSQ is de ned in terms of a management trainees learning
rather than that of an undergraduate accounting student. Caution should be employed when
using the LSQ to select appropriate instructional methods or to categorize individual
students. The ndings indicate the LSQ may not be a suitable alternative to the
(psychometrically unsound) LSI for accounting education researchers.
References
Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (1988) The learning styles questionnaire: an alternative to Kolbs
inventory? Journal of Management Studies 25, 26981.
Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (1990) Validity of the learning styles questionnaire. Psychological
Reports 67, 85966.
Atkinson, G., Murrell, P.H. and Winters, M.R. (1990) Career personality types and learning styles.
Psychological Reports 66, 16062.
Butler, K.A. (1988) How kids learn: What theorists say. Learning 17, 3043.

196

Duff

Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R.A. (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper
Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series No. 07-017. Beverley Hills,
CA: Sage.
Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scienti c Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Plenum Press.
Cohen, J. (1960) A coef cient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement 20, 3746.
Cohen, R.J., Swerdlik, M.E. and Phillips, S.M. (1996) Psychological Testing and Assessment, 3rd
edn. Mountain View, CA: May eld.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951) Coef cient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrika 16,
297334.
Cronbach, L.J. (1990) Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Row.
De Ciantis, S.M. and 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, 80920.
Fung, Y.H., Ho, A.S.P. and Kwan, K.P. (1993) Reliability and validity of the learning styles
questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Technology 24, 1221.
Geiger, M.A., Boyle, E.J. and Pinto, J.K. (1992) A factor analysis of Kolbs revised learning style
inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52, 75359.
Geiger, M.A., Boyle, E.J. and Pinto, J.K. (1993) An examination of ipsative and normative versions
of Kolbs revised learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53,
71726.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal
of Management 21, 96788.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J. and Roberts, B.W. (1996) Personality measurement and employment
decisions: questions and answers. American Psychologist 51(5), 46977.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992, 1986) The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter
Honey.
Horn, J.L. (1965) A rationale for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica 30,
17985.
Hoyle, R.H. and Panter, A.T. (1995) Writing about structural equation models. In R.H. Hoyle (ed.)
Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 7699. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ibbetson, A. and Newell, S. (1996) Winner takes all: an evaluation of the effectiveness of adventurebased experiential training. Management Learning 27, 16385.
Jung, C.G. (1921, 1971) Psychological Types. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 20, 14151.
Kennington, C., Sitko-Lutek, A., Rakowska, A. and Grif ths, J. (1996) Matching training to the
needs of Polish managers. Management Learning 27, 46583.
Kirton, M.J. (1994) Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving, 2nd edn.
London: Routledge.
Kirton, M.J. (1997) Authors personal correspondence with Professor Kirton.
Kline, P. (1994) Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kolb, D.A. (1976) Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA: McBer and
Company.
Kolb, D.A. (1985) Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet.
Boston, MA: McBer and Company.
Lewin, K. (1936) The Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marsh, H.W. and Hau, K.-T. (1999) Con rmatory factor analysis: strategies for small sample
research. In R.H. Hoyle (ed.) Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, pp. 25184.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Psychometric properties of the learning styles questionnaire

197

Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.-T. and Balla, J. (1997) Is more ever too much: the number of indicators per
factor in con rmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Myers, I.B. and Briggs, K.C. (1962) MyersBriggs Indicator. CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Norusis, M.J. (1994) SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1TM. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Packwood, A. and Sinclair Taylor, A. (1995) Learning styles and student progress. In G. Gibbs (ed.)
Improving Student Learning Through Assessment and Evaluation, pp. 21725. Oxford:
OCSD.
Reynolds, M. (1997) Learning styles: a critique. Management Learning 28, 11533.
Ruble, T.L. and Stout, D.E. (1993) Comments on the use of the LSI in research on student
performance in accounting education. Accounting Educators Journal 5, 3545.
Sangster, A. (1996) Objective tests, learning to learn and learning styles. Accounting Education: an
international journal 5, 13146.
Schreisheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C. and Lankau, M.J. (1993)
Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative
approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey instruments.
Journal of Management 19, 385417.
Sims, R.R., Veres, G.G. and Shake, I.G. (1989) An exploratory examination of the convergence
between the LSQ and the learning style inventory II. Educational and Psychological
Measurement 49, 22733.
Snyder, M. and Cantor, N. (1988) Understanding personality and social behavior: a functionalist
strategy. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology,
4th edn, Vol. 1, pp. 63579. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Stout, D.E. and Ruble, T.L. (1991a) The LSI and accounting education research: a cautionary view
and suggestions for future research. Issues in Accounting Education 6, 4152.
Stout, D.E. and Ruble, T.L. (1991b) A reexamination of accounting students learning styles.
Journal of Accounting Education 9, 34154.
Stout, D.E. and Ruble, T.L. (1994) A reassessment of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-1985) in
accounting education research. Journal of Accounting Education 12, 89104.
Tepper, B.J., Tetrault, L.A., Braun, C.K. and Romero, J.E. (1993) Discriminant and convergent
validity of the problem solving style questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 43744.
Thompson, B. and 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.
Wilson, R.M.S. and Hill, A.P. (1994) Learning styles - a literature guide. Accounting Education: an
international journal 3(4): 34958.

Copyright of Accounting Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.