This study examined the factor structure of a Korean version of the Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Questionnaire. The instrument was developed to measure the learning-style preferences of students of English as a second language and English as a foreign language and has gained wide currency as a classroom diagnostic tool and survey instrument for research on second-language acquisition. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's α) for scores on the six scales hypothesized by Reid were generally not good and corroborated results in the limited number of previous studies. A confirmatory factor analysis led to the rejection of the hypothesized model, and an exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor model as more appropriate. It is argued that the results of this study indicate that the instrument is flawed and that the results of previous research based on it are questionable. It is also argued that the continued use of the instrument within the research trajectory of second-language acquisition be suspended until the instrument has been revised.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Daley, C.E. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28, 115-133.
2.
Bollen, K.A., & Stine, R.A. (1993). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 111-135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Byrne, B.M. (1995). One application of structural equation modeling from two perspectives: Exploring the OQS and LISREL strategies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 138-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 3, 245-276.
6.
Cattell, R.B., & Scheuberger, J.M. (1978). Personality theory in action . Champaign: IPAT.
7.
Dirksen, C. (1988). Learning styles of mainland Chinese studying English . ELIC Teaching, 1(1), 9-20.
Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 517-531.
11.
Frank, M., & Hughes, M. (2002). Examining the learning styles of Japanese students at Keiwa College. Keiwa Gakuen UniversityResearch Bulletin , 11, 73-86.
12.
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.
14.
Henson, R.K., Capraro, R.M., & Capraro, M.M. (2004). Reporting practices and use of exploratory factor analyses in educational research journals: Errors and explanation. Research in the Schools, 11(2), 61-72.
15.
Henson, R.K., & Hwang, D. (2002). Variability and prediction of measurement error in Kolb's Leaning Style Inventory scores: A reliability generalization study . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 712-727.
16.
Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
17.
Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
18.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
19.
Hyland, K. (1993). Culture and learning: A study of the learning styles of Japanese students. RELC Journal, 24(2), 69-91.
20.
Hyland, K. (1994). The learning styles of Japanese students. JALT Journal, 16, 55-74.
Itzen, R. (1995). The dimensionality of learning structures in the Reid Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago. (UMI Dissertation Services No. 9532400)
23.
Kaiser, H. (1961). A note on Guttman's lower bound for the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 249-276.
24.
Kelly, C.A. (1998). The learning style preferences of Japanese EFL students. Gakuen, 697, 30-36.
25.
Lambert, Z.V., & Durand, R.M. (1975). Some precautions in using canonical analysis. Journal ofMarket Research, 12, 468-475.
26.
Liversidge, G. (1996). Learning styles: An attempt at a quantitative assessment. Otsuma Women's UniversityBulletin, 28, 93-114.
27.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
O'Brien, L. (1990). Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC)Rockville, MD: Specific Diagnostic Services.
29.
O'Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using a parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396-402.
30.
O'Donoghue, R.K., Oyabu, T., & Akiyoshi, R. (2001). An exploratory survey of Japanese EFL students' preferred learning styles. Bulletin of Fukuoka Dental College , 28, 9-17.
31.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 11(1), 1-20.
32.
Reid, J.M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire . Laramie: University of Wyoming , Department of English.
33.
Reid, J.M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students . TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-109.
34.
Reid, J.M. (1990). The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 232-338.
35.
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 118-125). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
36.
Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual-learning-style preferences of post secondary students of English as a second language. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 108-117). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
37.
Sy, B.M. (1991). Perceptual learning styles preference of English department students. Studies in ForeignLanguage Teaching , 1(1), 89-112.
38.
Takagi, A. (2002). The influence of teaching method on student learning style. Paper presented at the bimonthly meeting of the Language Education Research Group, Waseda University , Japan.
39.
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, 197-208.
40.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Wilkinson, L., & American Psychological Association Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
42.
Wintergerst, A.C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385-403.
43.
Yamashita, S. (1995). The learning style preferences of Japanese returnee students. ICULanguage Research Bulletin, 10, 59-75.
44.
Yung, Y.F., & Bentler, P.M. (1996). Bootstrapping techniques in analysis of mean and covariance structures. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 195-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Zhu, W. ( 1997). Making bootstrap statistical inferences: A tutorial. Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 68, 44-55.
