1. Content Validity
Initial content or "face" validity, which is concerned with how well an instrument measures what it claims to measure, has been established by the RSI. Between 1976 and 1980, the items on the RSI were developed as a result of careful comparisons between a youngster's actual behavior as observed randomly by at least two trained individuals, and the student's self-reported behavior. In 1981, articles in Educational Leadership (Dunn and Reckinger, 1981) and the Learning Styles Network Newsletter ("Selecting the 'Right' Reading Approach...," 1981) invited practitioners to evaluate the appropriateness and representativeness of the RSI items, as well as the clarity of the language. Eighty-seven educators representing 23 states responded; 93% stated that the RSI accurately measured the elements of reading style.
2. Concurrent Validity
A second kind of validity, concurrent validity, can be determined by submitting an instrument to experts in the field, and demonstrating high correlations with valid and reliable instruments that measure similar variables. The validity of the RSI has been recognized by "experts in the field" (Adams, 1983; Dixon, 1983; Freeley, 1983; Hamilton, 1983) and research has evidenced correlations with the Learning Style Inventory by Dunn, Dunn and Price (1979) (Carbo, 1982, 1983a, b; Price, Dunn & Sanders, 1980; "Which Learning Style Elements...," 1980; Zenhausern, Dunn, Cavanaugh & Eberle, 1981).
In 1982, a nationwide survey was conducted by the National Center for the Study of Learning/Teaching Styles to identify those learning style instruments (K-12) that demonstrated reliability and validity, had been utilized by practitioners, and had been reported in at least one research study ("Network Undertakes Instrument Classification System," 1982). Their "report to the field," was "based on the data collected after one full year of careful investigation" (p. 1, Freeley, 1983). The RSI was one of fourteen learning style instruments that qualified for inclusion in the Learning Styles Network's Instruments Assessment Analysis.
Students, teachers, and parents have stated that the RSI printouts are accurate. For instance, 96% of the 147 parents who participated in a research study conducted with the RSI, indicated that the RSI printouts were accurate (The Juanita Project, 1983).
Students' actual behavior has been compared to the RSI printout descriptions of their preferences and strengths. The following report of Hamilton's is a typical example of teacher observations (Hamilton, 1983):
...the nine students who had said (on their RSI) that they preferred snacks and worked best with snacks were the ones who consistently, day after day, week after week, and month after month continued to bring in snacks for themselves...it seemed to calm them down quite a bit, and I got quite a bit of extra work out of them (p. 3).
Dixon's (1983) six-month observations of her high school students also corroborated the validity of the RSI printouts. She wrote:
The results (of the RSI) were very revealing and were on target with the findings experienced in the Communications Skills Lab. The descriptions matched what was observed with the students over the past six months (p. 4).
Later, in that same report, Dixon stated:
The Reading Style Inventory is most revealing: it is a diagnostic instrument, a time-saver, an eye opener, and a means for prescriptions. This fast, accurate tool can assist pupils (to) make an easy adjustment to school...The RSI is very valuable to prevent reading failure and increase reading enjoyment.
Similar data were yielded by both the Reading Style Inventory (Carbo, 1980) and the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1979), when the style differences of good and poor readers and students across grade levels were compared. On the RSI (Carbo 1982, 1983b), good readers and poor readers evidenced significant differences on nine of the eleven elements that were identified with the LSI (Price, Dunn & Sanders, 1980). In addition, significant differences on the LSI subscales between right and left activators (Zenhausern, Dunn, Cavanaugh & Eberle, 1981) were identical to those obtained with the RSI (Carbo, 1982, 1983b). Comparisons with the LSI of the learning styles of students across grade levels ("Which Learning Styles Elements....," 1980), closely matched those reported with the RSI (Carbo, 1982, 1983a).
3. Predictive Validity
A third kind of validity, which is called criterion-related or predictive validity, is "characterized by prediction to an OUTSIDE criterion and by checking a measuring instrument...against some outcome or measure" (p. 460, Kerlinger, 1973). Learning style research suggests that reading achievement increases significantly when students learn through their individual styles (Bursuk, 1969; Carbo, 1980; Daniel & Tacker, 1974; Donovan, 1978; Foster, et al., 1976; Ingersoll & DiVesta, 1974; Kaley, 1977; Krimsky, 1982; Lilly & Kelleher, 1973; Murrain, 1983; Pizzo, 1981; Shea, 1983, Spires, 1983; Urbschat, 1977; Virostko, 1983; Wepman & Morency, 1975; Wheeler, 1983; Wolfe, 1983).
Research indicates that the RSI has predictive validity. Educators who have implemented the RSI prescriptions report increased reading achievement, decreased discipline problems, increased reading for pleasure, improved student attitudes, and positive changes in the teacher's role and ability to teach reading (Brooks, 1991; Oglesby & Suter, 1995; Snyder, 1997).
4. Construct Validity
When considering the construct validity of an instrument, an important question is whether or not the instrument discriminates sufficiently among known groups. A series of ANOVAS was performed on the data gathered for the reliability study described above, and the subjects were compared across ability and grade levels. Good, average and poor readers were found to differ significantly on ten elements of reading style; there were also significant differences among mean scores on ten reading style elements across grade levels, and the males and females differed significantly on three reading style elements.
Statistical analyses of the ability groups revealed that poor readers demonstrated significantly less visual and auditory strength and stronger tactile and kinesthetic preferences than good readers (Carbo, 1982; 1983b). Identical results were reported by Koch (1983) when the RSI was administered to good and poor readers on the college level.
Ample research corroborates those findings. Reading performance has been found to be strongly related to perceptual abilities (Dykstra, 1966; Morency, 1968); good readers have indicated decided preferences for learning through their visual and auditory modalities, while poor readers have stronger preferences for learning tactually and kinesthetically (Adams, 1978; Bakker, 1966; Mills, 1956; Murray, 1980; Price, Dunn & Sanders, 1980; Walters & Kosowski, 1963), and poor readers appear to have difficulty shifting between, and integrating, auditory and visual stimuli (Beery, 1967; Birch & Belmont, 1964, 1965; Heckerl, 1971).
Across grade levels, statistical analyses of the data indicated that primary youngsters were significantly more tactile/kinesthetic, self-motivated, and teacher-motivated than intermediate and junior-high students. The younger children also demonstrated significantly lower visual and auditory strengths, and stronger preferences for structure, mobility, intake, reading in the morning and reading with adults or adults and peers. Price, Dunn and Sanders (1980) reported similar findings with the LSI.
The strong preferences which intermediate students have for choices of reading materials, prolonged reading periods, and high-interest reading materials have been verified by many investigators (Heathington, 1978; Moray, 1978; Stanchfield & Fraim, 1979). When the RSI was administered to 139 youngsters in grades four and five, the students' reading styles matched significantly less often with basal readers, and significantly more frequently with storybooks and individualized methods, regardless of previous reading experiences in school ("Kansas Discovers Reading Materials...," 1983).
The RSI subscales discriminated significantly between the males and females in the study on emotional stimuli. Boys were significantly more peer-motivated and less persistent and responsible than girls. Boys do comprise the great majority of poor readers in schools in the United States, but no significant differences have been found between the reading abilities of boys and girls in England, and in Germany boys are superior to girls (Johnson & Greenbaum, 1980). That research, combined with the RSI results suggests that, as hypothesized by Johnson and Greenbaum, boys may develop reading difficulties, in part, due to emotional/cultural causes. They may view reading as a "girls" activity and they may be less motivated by the reading materials prevalent in most beginning reading programs (Stanchfield & Fraim, 1979).
REFERENCES
Adams, D. Implementing the Reading Styles Inventory: The Juanita project. Paper presented atTeaching Reading Through Individual Reading Styles, inservice course for the Spokane Public Schools, August 1983.
Adams, J. Visual and tactual integration and cerebral dysfunction in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11, 197-204.
Bakker, D.J. Sensory dominance in normal and backward readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 1055-1058.
Beery, J.W. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by average and retarded readers. Child Development, 1967, 38, 827-833.
Birch, H.G. & Belmont, L. Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34, 852-861.
Birch, H.G. & Belmont, L. Auditory-visual integration, intelligence and reading ability in school children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 295-305.
Brooks, J.D. Teaching to identified learning styles: the effects upon oral and silent reading and listening comprehension. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toledo, 1991.
Bursuk, L. Sensory mode and lesson presentation as a factor in the reading comprehension improvement of adolescent retarded readers (Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 30/06A, 2370. (University Microfilms No. 69-21180).
Carbo, M. An analysis of the relationships between the modality preferences of kindergartners and selected reading treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight-word vocabulary (Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, New York, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 41/04A, 1389. (University Microfilms No. 80-21790).
Carbo, M. Reading style: Key to preventing reading failure. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1982, 126-135.
Carbo M. Reading styles change from second to eighth grade. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, February 1983(a), 40, 5, 56-59.
Carbo, M. Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional children. Exceptional Children. Reston, Virginia: Council for Exceptional Children, April 1983(b), 49, 6, 486-494.
Daniel, P.N. & Tacker, R.S. Preferred modality of stimulus input and memory for cvc trigrams. Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 67, 255-258.
Dixon, G. A specialist's reading of the Carbo Reading Style Inventory. Report for the 1982-1983 Model Schools Learning Style Project. Columbia, Maryland: Howard County Schools, 1983.
Donovan, M.A. The relationship between modality preferences and programs used in initial reading instruction (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 39/01A, 85. (University Microfilms No. 78-10248).
Dunn, R., Dunn, K. & Price, G. Learning style inventory. Lawrence, Kansas: Price Systems, 1974, 1979, 1981, 1985.
Dunn, R. & Reckinger, N. Learning styles. Educational Leadership. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, October 1981, 39, 1, 75-76.
Dykstra, R. Auditory discrimination abilities and beginning reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 1966, 1, 5-35.
Foster, G.G., Reese, J.H., Schmidt, C.R. & Ohrtman, W.F. Modality preference and the learning of sight words. Journal of Special Education, 1976, 10, 253-258.
Freeley, M. Learning Style Network's Instrumentation Assessment Analysis, An Interim Report. New
York: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John's University, 1983.
Hamilton, S. Reading styles: an experiment with sixth grade, poor readers. A report for the Norton, Ohio Public Schools, May 1983.
Heathington, B.S. What to do about reading motivation in the middle school. Journal of Reading.
Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, April 1978, 31, 7, 763-768.
Heckerl, J.R. Integration and ordering of bisensory stimuli in dyslexic children (Doctoral Dissertation,University of Michigan 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32/08A. (University Microfilms No. 72-4897).
Ingersoll, G.M. & DiVesta, F.J. Effects of modality preferences on learning and recall of bisensory stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 73-78.
Johnson, C.S. & Greenbaum, G.R. Are boys disabled readers due to sex-role stereotyping? Educational Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 1980, 37, 6, 492-496.
Kaley, Field dependence/independence and learning styles in sixth graders (Doctoral Dissertation, Hofstra University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38/03A 101. (University Microfilms No. 77-19517).
Kansas discovers reading materials mismatch students' styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter. New York: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John's University, Autumn, 1983, 4, 3, 6.
Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Koch, C.A. A comparison of responses of poor, average and good readers with the reading style inventory (Masters Thesis, Emporia State University, 1983).
Krimsky, J.S. A comparative study of the effects of matching and mismatching fourth grade students with their learning style preferences for the environmental element of light and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, 1982.
Lilly, S.M. & Kelleher, J. Modality strengths and aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Special Education, 1973, 7, 5-13.
Mills, R.E. An evaluation of techniques for teaching word recognition. Elementary School Journal, 1956, 56, 221-225.
Morency, A. Auditory modality-research and practice. In H.K. Smith (Ed.) Perception and reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1968.
Moray, G. What does research say about the reading interests of children in the intermediate grades? The Reading Teacher. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, April 1978, 31, 7, 763-768.
Murray, A.C. The comparison of learning styles between low and high reading achievement subjects in the seventh and eighth grades in a public middle school. Doctoral Dissertation, United States International University, 1980.
Murrain, P.G. Administrative determinations concerning facilities utilization and instructional grouping: An analysis of the relationship(s) between selected thermal environments and preferences for temperature, an element of learning style, as they affect word recognition scores of secondary school students. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, 1983.
Network undertakes instrument classification system. Learning Styles Network Newsletter. New York: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John's University, Winter 1982, 3, 1, 1.
Oglesby, F & Suter, W.N. Matching reading styles and reading instruction. Research in the Schools (Mid-South Educational Research Association), 1995, 2, 1, 11-15.
Pizzo, J. An investigation of the relationships between selected acoustic environments and sound, an element of learning style, as they affect reading achievement of male and female sixth grade students. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, 1981.
Price, G., Dunn, R. & Sanders, W. Reading achievement and learning styles. The Clearing House. Washington, DC. Heldref Publications, January 1980, 54, 5, 223-226.
Selecting the "right" reading approach, Step 1: learning styles analysis. Learning Style Network Newsletter. New York: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John's University, Winter 1981, 2, 1, 8.
Shea, T. An investigation among preferences for the learning style element of design, selected instructional environments, and reading test achievement of ninth grade students to improve administrative determinations concerning effective educational facilities. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, 1983.
Snyder, A.E. Utilization of a systemic design and learning styles model as a paradign for restructuring education. Doctoral Dissertation, Tennessee State University, 1997.
Spires, R.D. The effect of teacher in-service about learning styles on mathematics and reading achievement. Doctoral Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1983.
Stanchfield, J.M. & Fraim, S.R. A follow-up study on the reading interests of boys. Journal of Reading, May 1979, 748-752.
The Juanita Project. Kirkland, WA: Lake Washington School District, June 1983.
Urbschat, K. A study of preferred learning modes and their relationship to the amount of recall of cvc trigrams. Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, 1977.
Virostko, J. An analysis of the relationships among academic achievement in mathematics and reading, assigned instruction schedules, and learning style time preferences of third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University, 1983.
Walters, R.H. & Kosowski, I. Symbolic learning and reading retardation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 75-82.
Wepman, J.M. & Morency, A.S. Perceptual development and learning: An experimental study on modality reading instruction. Section II. Final report. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 125 164).
Wheeler, R. An investigation of the degree of academic achievement evidenced when second grade, learning disabled students' preferences are matched and mismatched with complementary sensory approaches to beginning reading instruction. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University,1983.
Which learning style elements are stable and which tend to change? Learning Styles Network Newsletter. New York: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John's University, Autumn 1980, 1, 3, 1.
Wolfe, G.L. Learning styles and the teaching of reading. Doctoral Dissertation, Akron University, 1983.
Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D.P. & Eberle, B.M. Do left and right "brained" students learn differently? Roeper Review, September 1981, 4, 1, 36-39.
