Validation of learning style measures: implications for medical education practice

It is unclear which learners would most benefit from the more individualised, student-structured, interactive approaches characteristic of problem-based and computer-assisted learning. The validity of learning style measures is uncertain, and there is no unifying learning style construct identified to predict such learners. Objective  This study was conducted to validate learning style constructs and to identify the learners most likely to benefit from problem-based and computer-assisted curricula. Methods  Using a cross-sectional design, 3 established learning style inventories were administered to 97 post-Year 2 medical students. Cognitive personality was measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test, information processing by the Learning Styles Inventory, and instructional preference by the Learning Preference Inventory. The 11 subscales from the 3 inventories were factor-analysed to identify common learning constructs and to verify construct validity. Concurrent validity was determined by intercorrelations of the 11 subscales. Results  A total of 94 pre-clinical medical students completed all 3 inventories. Five meaningful learning style constructs were derived from the 11 subscales: student- versus teacher-structured learning; concrete versus abstract learning; passive versus active learning; individual versus group learning, and field-dependence versus field-independence. The concurrent validity of 10 of 11 subscales was supported by correlation analysis. Medical students most likely to thrive in a problem-based or computer-assisted learning environment would be expected to score highly on abstract, active and individual learning constructs and would be more field-independent. Conclusions  Learning style measures were validated in a medical student population and learning constructs were established for identifying learners who would most likely benefit from a problem-based or computer-assisted curriculum.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72443/1/j.1365-2929.2006.02476.x.pd

New Kadampa Buddhists and Jungian psychological type

Building on previous studies on Canadian Anglicans and Catholics, this study examines and discusses the psychological type profile of 31 adherents to New Kadampa Buddhism. Like Anglicans and Catholics, Buddhists preferred introversion (I). Like Anglicans who preferred intuition (N) and unlike Catholics who preferred sensing (S), Buddhists displayed a preference for intuition (N). Unlike Anglicans and Catholics who both preferred feeling (F), Buddhists displayed a balance between feeling (F) and thinking (T). Like Anglicans and unlike Catholics, Buddhists preferred the Apollonian temperament (NF) over the Epimethean temperament (SJ). These data are discussed to interpret the psychological appeal of New Kadampa Buddhism

The psychological-type profile of practising British Druids compared with Anglican Churchgoers

This study employs psychological-type theory to profile practising British Druids and to compare their profile with that of Anglican churchgoers. A sample of 75 participants at a camp organised by The Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids in celebration of the Mid-Summer Festival completed the Francis Psychological Type Scales. Compared with the profile of 327 Anglican churchgoers previously published by Francis, Duncan, Craig and Luffman, the Druids were significantly more likely to prefer intuition and less likely to prefer sensing. The implications of these data are discussed for understanding the contemporary appeal of Druidry. Overall the Druids prefer introversion (61%), intuition (64%), feeling (56%) and judging (68%)

The validity and responsiveness of isometric lower body multi–joint tests of muscular strength: A Systematic Review

Abstract Background Researchers and practitioners working in sports medicine and science require valid tests to determine the effectiveness of interventions and enhance understanding of mechanisms underpinning adaptation. Such decision making is influenced by the supportive evidence describing the validity of tests within current research. The objective of this study is to review the validity of lower body isometric multi-joint tests ability to assess muscular strength and determine the current level of supporting evidence. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in a systematic fashion to search, assess and synthesize existing literature on this topic. Electronic databases such as Web of Science, CINAHL and PubMed were searched up to 18 March 2015. Potential inclusions were screened against eligibility criteria relating to types of test, measurement instrument, properties of validity assessed and population group and were required to be published in English. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality and measurement property rating of included studies. Studies rated as fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. Results Fifty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria for quality appraisal. The ten studies that rated fair or better in methodological quality were included in the best evidence synthesis. The most frequently investigated lower body isometric multi-joint tests for validity were the isometric mid-thigh pull and isometric squat. The validity of each of these tests was strong in terms of reliability and construct validity. The evidence for responsiveness of tests was found to be moderate for the isometric squat test and unknown for the isometric mid-thigh pull. No tests using the isometric leg press met the criteria for inclusion in the best evidence synthesis. Conclusions Researchers and practitioners can use the isometric squat and isometric mid-thigh pull with confidence in terms of reliability and construct validity. Further work to investigate other validity components such as criterion validity, smallest detectable change and responsiveness to resistance exercise interventions may be beneficial to the current level of evidence