This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 13 June 2013, At: 01:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Psychology:

Interdisciplinary and Applied
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
[Link]

A Rational Approach to
Developing and Assessing
the Construct Validity of a
Student Learning Style Scales
Instrument
a a
Sheryl Wetter Riechmann & Anthony F. Grasha
a
University of Cincinnati, USA
Published online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Sheryl Wetter Riechmann & Anthony F. Grasha (1974): A Rational
Approach to Developing and Assessing the Construct Validity of a Student Learning
Style Scales Instrument, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
87:2, 213-223

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: [Link]

and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
 for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013
 Published as a separate and in The Journal of Psychology, 1974,87,213-223.

A RATIONAL APPROACH TO DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING

THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A STUDENT LEARNING
STYLE SCALES INSTRUMENT* 1.
University of Cincinnati
~~~

SHERYLWETTERRIECHMANNAND ANTHONYF. GRASHA~

SUMMARY
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

An instrument, the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales

(GRSLSS), was developed to assess six student learning styles. These styles
are Independent, Dependent, Avoidant, Participant, Collaborative, and Com-
petitive. A “rational approach” was used to develop the GRSLSS and evaluate
its construct validity. The process included professional and student inputs
in special procedures for selecting scale items and designing criterion items.
The utility of this approach is considered and problems critiqued. The
rational approach yielded relatively high temporal reliability coefficients
(range across scales Y = .76 to Y = .83; N = 269) and numerous meaningful
correlations between criterion items and scale scores.

A. INTRODUCTION
The potential contribution of considering individual student character-
istics for understanding and enhancing classroom learning is suggested by
several studies (cf. 1, 3, 8, 9). In much of this literature, standardized
personality tests have been used to identify student characteristics. A typical
finding, however, is that such tests do not serve as reliable predictors of class-
room performance (11, 12), nor as adequate indications of which character-
istics interact with instructional formats (3) or academic achievement (2).
If teachers are to innovate and take student learning needs into consideration,

* Received in the Editorial Office on April 22, 1974, and published immediately at
Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Prcss.
1 This study is based in part on a Masters thesis done by the senior author in the
Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati. Thanks are extended to Dr. Richard
Melton for his statistical and design assistance.
-2 The assistance of the Behavioral Science Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati
with the computer analysis of the data is acknowledged.
8 Requests for reprints and revised copies of the GRSLSS (15 items/scale) should be
sent to Dr. Anthony F. Grasha at the address shown at the end of this article.
2 13
 2 14 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

relatively easy to use and interpret methods of assessing students’ learning

styles are needed.
T o accomplish this goal a decision was made to develop an instrument that
was based on the types of learning styles students demonstrate in the class-
room. On the basis of interview and questionnaire data obtained from students
(cf. 4, 5) sis general styles were distinguished. They were the Independent,
Dependent, Participant, Avoidant, Collaborative, and Competitive learning
styles. Each of the six response styles was defined around three classroom
dimensions; student attitudes toward learning, view of teachers and/or peers,
and reactions to classroom procedures. The definitions of the six learning
styles are given in the Appendix.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

To deal with the issues of selecting items for the instrument and then
assessing the validity of the constructs underlying the instrument, a rational
approach to scale construction was employed (6). This approach emphasizes
the importance of theory, of rationally defining constructs, and of devising
items in relation to one’s theory. Judges essentially write items that they feel
rationally relate to the theory and constructs being considered. This is in
contrast to the method of empirical item selection ( 7 ) where a large pool of
items is devised without strong reference to a theory or definition of the
constructs underlying the instrument. Jackson’s method is more efficient in
terms of time and energy spent in item selection. His success in developing
the Personality Research Form suggests that the procedure can lead to an
instrument that has acceptable levels of reliability and validity.
The present paper outlines the “rational” process that was used to begin
the development of the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales
(GRSLSS). The major focus of this article is to present the procedures used
and the assumptions made in the initial stages of developing the instrument.
They are unique and should be of value to others interested in designing
classroom related instruments. Our interzt i s not to present the instrument as
Q final product here. The rational procedures employed were useful in ob-

taining an initial version of the scales and in suggesting several directions for
the future modification and development of the scales. It is this process artd
its utility that is of major concern in this paper.
B. SELECTIONOF ITEMSFOR THE GRSLSS
Each of 34 undergraduate college students, 2 1 females and 13 males, were
asked to pick 48 items from an 84 item pool. The 84 items had been designed
by E to tap the dimensions in each of the six scale definitions. This was done
in such a way to yield 14 items for each of the sis scales. Students were used
 SHERYL WETTER RIECHMANN AND ANTHONY F. GRASHA 215

to select the best items from this pool for use in the instrument, since they
were deemed to be the best judges of student classroom behaviors and prefer-
ences. Support for the use of students as item judges in another context is
provided in a study by Stricker, Jacobs, and Kogan (10).
Students were told that they were helping to design a student learning
style questionnaire. The concept of learning styles was briefly explained, and
each S was given the definitions of each scale on separate 3 X 5 cards.
Participants were told to imagine a person who exhibited the characteristics
given in each definition. Each student was given a deck of index cards con-
taining the 84 items. They were instructed to sort the cards into the six
learning style categories with the restriction that they finish with 14 cards
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

in each category. Students were told that the items sorted most consistently
into a given category would be used in the final instrument.
The criterion for inclusion of an item in the scales was set a t 70% agree-
ment among [Link] the use of this criterion, it was possible to obtain eight
items for each of the scales except the Participant scale. The criterion was
lowered to 5976 to obtain eight items for that scale. Of the 48 items selected
for the GRSLSS, 28 were consistently sorted into a category 80% of the
time, and 14 of these items were sorted more than 90% of the time into a
given category.
C. COLLECTION OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY DATA
Collecting construct validity data on the GRSLSS presented a problem. A
crucial part of that problem was to decide what constituted an appropriate
criterion measure. Contrary to most construct validity studies, there seemed
to be no obviously related, pretested criterion measure available. Different
personality tests were considered, but were dismissed as inappropriate for
several reasons. First, they generally seemed not to assess behaviors directly
associated with the classroom. Since teachers are not familiar with inter-
preting personality test results, possible correlations between personality
tests and the GRSLSS were not perceived to be helpful. More importantly,
however, the hypothesized constructs underlying most of the learning styles
(Independent, Dependent, Avoidant, Participant, Collaborative, Competitive)
were not easily related to traditional personality variables.
1. Development of Criterion Item Questionnaire
In view of the above considerations, it seemed reasonable that a measure
of classroom behavior would be the best criterion. The procedure of actually
observing classroom behavior was eliminated as a possibility because of the
 216 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

time, number of dimensions, expense, and dificulty of interpretation involved.

Rather, a criterion instrument designed to assess classroom behaviors and
preferences and to relate to the learning style constructs seemed more appro-
priate. To our knowledge, no such instrument existed and one had to be
developed. This decision presented three issues: What behaviors should be
included in such an instrument? How should the criterion items be derived?
Who should judge the appropriateness of the criterion items? Our solutions
to these questions are presented below.
In Phase 1 of the construct validity portion of the study, 2 1 undergraduate
student volunteers worked in small groups of up to four members to suggest
criterion items. Each S was given a set of six cards with the definition of a
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

scale typed on each one. On the basis of these definitions, Ss were asked to
predict specific classroom behaviors and preferences that students with each
of the styles would exhibit. The predictions asked for were of three types:
( a ) Classroom related behaviors the student would exhibit (e.g., a student
scoring highly on the Avoidant scale might skip a lot of classes) ; ( b ) The
kind of teaching techniques the student would prefer (e.g., the Collaborative
student might prefer group discussions); ( c ) The kind of tests and/or
assignments the student would prefer (e. g., the Independent student might
wish to choose class readings for himself). Subjects were asked to make their
predictions orally. In this way E was able to assess the level of agreement
among the Ss in each small group on the suggestions made.
In Phase 2, E wrote 7 1 items from the approximately 575 suggestions
generated by the small groups. Items were written to reflect those behaviors
and preferences consistently suggested to be appropriate for each style by
several different Ss. The selected items were of two types. The first type
were called uni-scale items. On the basis of students’ suggestions in Phase 1,
these items were predicted to correlate primarily with only one scale. The
uni-scale items referred most often to classroom related behaviors. Examples
of uni-scale items are the following: I daydream during classes (Avoidant) ;
I sit straight and pay attention to what goes on in class (Participant). The
second type were called multiple-scale items. On the basis of students’ sug-
gestions, these items were predicted to correlate with more than one scale.
Examples of these items are as follows: I talk with other students outside
class about what was covered in class (Collaborative and Participant); Small
seminar classes preferred (Independent and Collaborative). Of the 71 items
in the Criterion Item Questionnaire, 5 1 items were uni-scale and 21 were of
the multi-scale variety.
 SHERYL WETTER RIECHMANN AND ANTHONY F. GRASHA 217

In Phase 3, 264 sophomore psychology students responded to both the

GRSLSS and the Criterion Item Questionnaire. The correlations of the scales
with the criterion items provided some evidence of the construct validity of
the learning style scales. Predicted correlations were significant most often
for the Avoidant (86%), Collaborative (67%), and Participant (60%)
scales, and less often for the Dependent (SO%), Independent (47%), and
Competitive (23%) scales. There was a tendency for the scales with lower
percentages of significant predicted correlations to have fewer criterion items
originally expected to correlate with them. For example, the Competitive
and Dependent scales had the fewest predicted correlations (13 and 14,
respectively), whereas the Avoidant and Collaborative scales had the most
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

(22 and 18, respectively).

For all scales, predicted correlations were more often significant for criterion
items describing classroom behavior than were predicted correlations for
the criterion items concerning type of assignment, tests, and teaching methods
preferred. When one looks, however, at the criterion items that did correlate
significantly with the scales, it is clear that those items are consistent with
the characteristics listed in the constructs underlying each scale. Because
of the large number of significant correlations between criterion items and
scale scores, all the relevant correlations cannot be discussed in this paper.
Only a few of the statistically significant correlations for each scale will be
considered. All correlation coefficients discussed in this paper were significant
a t the .01 level of confidence.

2. Avoidant Scale Correlations

With regard to the Avoidant scale, the Avoidant student was defined as
not interested in learning course content in the traditional classroom, as not
participating much in classroom activities, and as overwhelmed or un-
interested in what occurs in the classroom. Scores on the Avoidant scale do
correlate with a number of pertinent criterion items. The following items are
examples.
I doodle in my notebooks (r = .34).
I daydream during class (r = .45).
I never ask questions in my classes (r = .29).
During class I talk and joke around with the people sitting next to me
(I = 28).
The classroom behavior items with which the scale correlated negatively
are also suggestive of the Avoidant student. For example:
 218 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

I sit straight and pay attention to what goes on in class (r = -.40).

I keep up on class reading assignments (r = -.30).
I listen carefully to what others in the class say (r = -.22).
I reread assignments a t least twice (I = -.24).
All of these items suggest that students scoring highly on the Avoidant scale
tend not to be prepared for class or to pay attention when they get to class.
Some of the statistically significant correlations between the Avoidant
scale and criterion items relating to the type of assignments and test liked
follow:
No tests (r = .30).
Blanket grades where everybody in class automatically gets a passing grade
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

(r = .24).
No required readings or assignments (r = .31).
Term papers and projects to be done individually where topic is determined
by the student (r = - 2 2 ) .
These items suggest that the Avoidant student is one who does not like to be
evaluated or to do assignments. He dislikes writing papers when he has to
choose the topic, perhaps indicating that he does not like to take responsibility
for class assignments.
All of these data taken together fit with the predetermined definition of
the Avoidant scale. These data would also seem to suggest that the Avoidant
student would be likely to get low grades. The correlation between the
Avoidant scale and grade point average was found to be -.34.

3 . Participant Scale Correlations

A large number of the predicted correlations for the Participant scale
were also found to be statistically significant. The Participant student was
defined as one who wants to learn course content, likes to go to class, and
takes responsibility for getting the most out of classes. The definition suggests
that this type of student would function effectively in the classroom environ-
ment. This hypothesis is supported by the positive correlation ( r = .23)
between this scale and grade point average and also by the correlations be-
tween the scale and the criterion items.
Examples of the correlations between the Participant scale and items
relating to classroom related behaviors are the following:
I sit toward the front of the room ( Y = .33).
I keep up on class reading assignments (r = .40).
I sit straight and pay attention to what goes on in class (r = .42).
With the exception of being sick, I never cut class (r = 3).
 SHERYL WETTER RIECHMANN AND ANTHONY F. GRASIIA 219

One gets a totally different picture from these items than from the items
with which the Avoidant scale correlated. This negative relationship between
the Participant and Avoidant scales is illustrated most cogently in their
correlations with certain of the criterion items. In several cases, criterion
items which correlated positively with one scale correlated negatively with
the other. For example, the item, “I daydream during classes,” correlated
.45 with the Avoidant scale and -.38 with the Participant scale. The reverse
was true for the item, “I sit straight and pay attention to what goes on in
class.” I t correlated -.40 with the Avoidant scale and .42 with the Participant
scale. Correlations of this type are specific evidence of the negative correla-
tion between these scales suggested by the negative interscale correlation
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

( f = -.62).
The Participant scale positively correlated with 15 criterion items with
which it was not predicted to correlate. (The Avoidant scale, in contrast,
only correlated with two criterion items with which it was not predicted to
correlate.) This outcome for the Participant scale is consistent with the
finding that the Participant scale correlated somewhat with every other
scale. The findings are also consistent with the Phase 1 student opinions.
These students said the Participant student was unlikely to have strong
preferences about classroom activities.
4. Collaborative Scale Correlations
The Collaborative scale correlated with 67% of the items with which it
was predicted to correlate. (The Avoidant scale correlated with 86% and the
Participant with 6 0 p . ) The Collaborative style emphasizes sharing ideas
with faculty and students and working in groups. Because the emphasis is
on interpersonal behavior rather than on behaviors related directly to con-
tent learning, no significant correlation between the scale scores and grade
point average was expected. None was found.
The emphasis of this scale on Collaborative behavior is vividly illustrated
by the following criterion items with which the scale correlated:
I listen carefully to what others in class say (I = .28).
I share ideas from my outside reading with other students in classes (Y =
.36).
Group or peer-determined grades ( Y = 2 2 ) .
Doing group projects rather than doing individual projects (Y = .23).
The Collaborative scale correlated with more of the teaching method items
in the Criterion Item Questionnaire than did the other scales. Correlations
with the following four of these items were predicted to be significant:
 220 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Lecture with class discussion (I = 2 5 ) .

Lecture with small group discussion (I = .36).
Student designed courses (I = .31).
Prefers small seminar classes (I = 2 8 ) .

As might be expected on the basis of these items, the Collaborative scale

correlated -.26 with the item, “Lecture with syllabus and no discussion.”
Overall, the data for the Collaborative scale do suggest, as does the definition
of the style, that a student scoring highly on the scale likes to share ideas
and work with others.
5 . Remaining Correlations
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

The validity evidence on the Dependent, Competitive, and Independent

scales was not as strong as it was for the Avoidant, Participant, and Collabo-
rative scales. Predicted correlations were significant 50% of the time for the
Dependent scale, 47% of the time for the Independent scale, and 23% of the
time for the Competitive scale.
For the Dependent scale, certain of the significant correlations found were
consistent with the definition of the Dependent student as one who learns
only what is required and who looks to others for guidance and support.
For example:
When students participate in class decisions, I agree with the majority
(I = .13).
I find teacher outlines or notes on the board helpful (r = 2 7 ) .
I request that deadlines be set for when assignments are due (r = .18).
The Independent scale also correlated significantly with items that were
consistent with the definition given for Independent students. Such a student
was thought to like to think for himself, to prefer working alone, and to
learn what he felt was important. Examples of items follow:
I try to abstract concepts out of the facts I hear (I = .27).
If I don’t understand something, I try to figure it out for myself before I
go to someone else for help (I = 2 1 ) .
Prefers small seminar classes (r = . 2 2 ) .
The findings were similar for the Competitive scale. The Competitive
student was defined basically as one who learns course content in order to
perform better than others in class, and who feels he must compete with other
students for teachers’ attention and grades. Examples of significant predicted
items which are consistent with this definition are the following:
I ask other students in my classes what grades they received on tests and/or
assignments (r = 28).
 SHERYL WETTER RIECHMANN AND ANTHONY F. GRASHA 221
I ask more questions than most of the other students do in my classes
(I = .IS).
D. CONCLUSION
The large number of meaningful significant correlations found between
criterion items and scale scores indicate that the rational approach to scale
construction was useful in this context. Undergraduate students were able
to suggest relevant scale items and criterion items. The magnitude of effec-
tiveness of this approach was masked by the relatively low temporal reliability
of the GRSLSS. In the initial study, the test-retest reliability coefficients
(N = 93) ranged from .64 for the Independent and Competitive scales to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

.78 for the Participant scale and .79 for the Avoidant scale. Significant male
-female differences were not noted.
On the basis of the data from this study, the number of items per scale
was increased in a later study from eight to 15. The test-retest reliabilities
(seven-day interval between testings) on this expanded instrument increased
Over those on the eight item instrument. The new reliability coefficients for
males (N = 119) are as follows: Independent, .84; Avoidant, 232; Collabo-
rative, .81; Dependent, 231; Competitive, 3 4 ; Participant, .89. The reliability
of the scales was slightly lower for females. Coefficients for females (N =
150) are the following: Independent, .82; Avoidant, .76; Collaborative, .78;
Dependent, .73 ; Competitive, .81; Participant, .74. Total sample coefficients
(N = 269) were Independent, .83; Avoidant, .79; Collaborative, 30;
Dependent, .76; Competitive, .82 ; Participant, 3 2 . Studies are underway
to assess whether the expected increase in validity coefficients will occur as
a result of the increase in temporal reliability coefficients.

APPENDIX:DEFINITIONS STYLESUSED
OF THE SIX LEARNING
IN PART 1AND PART 11

1. Independent. This response style is characteristic of the student who

likes to think for himself. He prefers to work on his own, but he will listen to
the ideas of others in the classroom. He learns the content he feels is im-
portant and is confident in his learning abilities.
2. Dependent. This style is characteristic of the student who shows little
intellectual curiosity and who learns only what is required. He sees teachers
and peers as sources of structure and support. He looks to authority figures
for guidelines and wants to be told what to do.
3 . Collaborative. This style is typical of the student who feels he can
learn the most by sharing his ideas and talents. He cooperates with teachers
 222 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

and peers and likes to work with others. He sees the classroom as a place for
social interaction , as well as content learning.
4. Competitive. This response style is exhibited by the student who learns
material in order to perform better than others in the class. He feels he must
compete with other students in the class for the rewards of the classroom,
such as grades or teachers’ attention. He views the classroom as a win-lose
situation where he must always win.
5. Participant. This style is characteristic of the student who wants to
learn course content and likes to go to class. He takes responsibility for
getting the most out of class and participates with others when told to do
so. He feels that he should take part in as much of the class related activity
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013

as possible and does little that is not part of the course outline.
6. Avoidant. This response style is typical of a student who is not inter-
ested in learning course content in the traditional classroom. He does not
participate with students and teachers in the classroom. He is uninterested
or overwhelmed by what goes on in the classes.

REFERENCES
1. DOwALmY, F. J., & SCHUMER,H. Teacher-centered vs. student-centered mode of
college classroom instruction as related to manifest anxiety. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September, 1971.
2. ENTWISTLE,N. J., & ENTWISTLE, D. The relationship between personality, study
methods, and academic performance. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol., 1970, 40, 132-141.
3. GOLDBERG, L. Student personality characteristics and optimal college learning con-
ditions. Monograph No. 9, Oregon Research Institute, University of Oregon,
Eugene, 1969.
4. GRASHA,A. F. Emphasizing the negative: Avoidance, competitive and dependent
response styles; implications for classroom design. Cat. of Select. Doc. in Psychol.,
1971, 1, 19-20.
3. -. Observations on relating teaching goals to student response styles and
classroom methods. Amer. Psychol., 1972, 27, 144-147.
6. JACKSON, D. N. The dynamics of structured personality tests: 1971. Psychol. Rev.,
1971, 78, 229-248.
7. MEEHL,P. E. The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. J . Clin. Psychol., 1945,
1, 296-303.
S. POHL, R. L., & PERVIN, L. A. Academic performance as a function of task require-
ments and cognitive style. Psychol. Rep., 1968, 22, 1017-1020.
9. RAYNOR, J. 0. Relationships between achievement-related motive, future orientation,
and academic performance. J. Personal. 6. [Link]., 1970, 15, 28-33.
10. STRICKER, L. J., JACOBS, P., & KOCAN,N. Veridicality of implicit personality theories.
Proc. Seventy-Eighth Ann. Conven. Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1970, 5 , 157-158 (Sum-
mary).
11. TALLMADGE, G. K., & SHEARER,J. W. Relationships among learning styles, instruc-
tional methods, and the nature of learning experiences. J. Educ. Psychol., 1969, 60,
220-230.
 SHERYL WETTER RIECHMANN AND ANTHONY F. GRASHA 223

12. -. Interactive relationships among learning characteristics, types of learning,

instructional methods, and subject matter variables. J . Educ. Psychol., 1971, 62,
31-38.
Institute for Research and Training in
Higher Education/Department of Psychology
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:09 13 June 2013