Validating the learning styles questionnaire and inventory of learning processed in accounting: a research note

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study, using third-year undergraduate business students as subjects, examined the reliability and validity of Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire and Schmeck’s Inventory of Learning Processes. The predictive validity was assessed by relating scores on the subscales of the instruments to academic achievement as measured by students’ performance under two different methods of assessment. Internal consistency was measured by the alpha coefŽ cients which ranged from 0.51 to 0.74 for the LSQ and from 0.53 to 0.74 for the ILP, suggesting moderate internal consistency. Factor analysis of the items of both instruments did not reveal any coherent factor structure congruent with the underlying constructs. No signiŽ cant relationship was found between
academic performance and scores on any of the subscales of the two instruments. The limitations of, and implications for, the use of both instruments by accounting education researchers are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)263-272
Number of pages10
JournalAccounting Education
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

questionnaire
learning
academic achievement
performance
learning process
factor analysis
student
Learning styles
Questionnaire
education
Internal consistency
Undergraduate
Business students
Accounting education
Factor analysis
Academic achievement
Learning process
Student performance
Factors
Predictive validity

Keywords

  • learning styles
  • approach to learning
  • assessment
  • reliability
  • validity

Cite this

@article{b9a8a8ebfc374d9193aa7235758fdcd0,
title = "Validating the learning styles questionnaire and inventory of learning processed in accounting: a research note",
abstract = "This study, using third-year undergraduate business students as subjects, examined the reliability and validity of Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire and Schmeck’s Inventory of Learning Processes. The predictive validity was assessed by relating scores on the subscales of the instruments to academic achievement as measured by students’ performance under two different methods of assessment. Internal consistency was measured by the alpha coefŽ cients which ranged from 0.51 to 0.74 for the LSQ and from 0.53 to 0.74 for the ILP, suggesting moderate internal consistency. Factor analysis of the items of both instruments did not reveal any coherent factor structure congruent with the underlying constructs. No signiŽ cant relationship was found betweenacademic performance and scores on any of the subscales of the two instruments. The limitations of, and implications for, the use of both instruments by accounting education researchers are discussed.",
keywords = "learning styles, approach to learning, assessment, reliability, validity",
author = "Angus Duff",
note = "Awarded Citation of Excellence by Anbar",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1080/096392897331497",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "263--272",
journal = "Accounting Education",
issn = "0963-9284",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validating the learning styles questionnaire and inventory of learning processed in accounting

T2 - a research note

AU - Duff, Angus

N1 - Awarded Citation of Excellence by Anbar

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - This study, using third-year undergraduate business students as subjects, examined the reliability and validity of Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire and Schmeck’s Inventory of Learning Processes. The predictive validity was assessed by relating scores on the subscales of the instruments to academic achievement as measured by students’ performance under two different methods of assessment. Internal consistency was measured by the alpha coefŽ cients which ranged from 0.51 to 0.74 for the LSQ and from 0.53 to 0.74 for the ILP, suggesting moderate internal consistency. Factor analysis of the items of both instruments did not reveal any coherent factor structure congruent with the underlying constructs. No signiŽ cant relationship was found betweenacademic performance and scores on any of the subscales of the two instruments. The limitations of, and implications for, the use of both instruments by accounting education researchers are discussed.

AB - This study, using third-year undergraduate business students as subjects, examined the reliability and validity of Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire and Schmeck’s Inventory of Learning Processes. The predictive validity was assessed by relating scores on the subscales of the instruments to academic achievement as measured by students’ performance under two different methods of assessment. Internal consistency was measured by the alpha coefŽ cients which ranged from 0.51 to 0.74 for the LSQ and from 0.53 to 0.74 for the ILP, suggesting moderate internal consistency. Factor analysis of the items of both instruments did not reveal any coherent factor structure congruent with the underlying constructs. No signiŽ cant relationship was found betweenacademic performance and scores on any of the subscales of the two instruments. The limitations of, and implications for, the use of both instruments by accounting education researchers are discussed.

KW - learning styles

KW - approach to learning

KW - assessment

KW - reliability

KW - validity

U2 - 10.1080/096392897331497

DO - 10.1080/096392897331497

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 263

EP - 272

JO - Accounting Education

JF - Accounting Education

SN - 0963-9284

IS - 3

ER -