learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument<br />
(HBDI)<br />
The HBDI is a self-report instrument covering the<br />
following types of preference and performance rating:<br />
handedness<br />
strong and weak school subjects<br />
work elements (eg administrative, innovating,<br />
teaching/training)<br />
key descriptors (eg verbal, emotional, factual)<br />
hobbies (eg fishing, photography, travel)<br />
energy level (eg day person, night person)<br />
motion sickness (frequency and connection<br />
with reading)<br />
adjective pairs (forced choice: eg controlled/creative)<br />
introversion/extraversion (nine-point scale)<br />
20 questions (five-point scale: eg ‘I dislike things<br />
uncertain and unpredictable’).<br />
The Flesch-Kincaid readability level of the 20 questions<br />
is 12–13 years and the vocabulary demand of the<br />
work element, key descriptor and adjective pair items<br />
is such that Herrmann provides a 43-item glossary.<br />
This suggests that the instrument will be inaccessible,<br />
without personal mediation, to people with low levels<br />
of basic literacy.<br />
Reliability<br />
The only reliability statistics published by the<br />
Herrmann Group (1989) are test–retest figures, based<br />
on a sample of 78 individuals (see below). The figures<br />
are remarkably high (except for quadrant B), but it<br />
should be noted that no information is provided about<br />
the interval between the two assessments, or about<br />
the feedback that may have been provided after the<br />
first assessment. The test–retest study formed part<br />
of a doctoral dissertation by Ho (unreferenced):<br />
A the rational self:<br />
0.86<br />
B the safe-keeping self:<br />
0.73<br />
C the feeling self:<br />
0.97<br />
D the experimental self:<br />
0.94<br />
introversion/extraversion rating:<br />
0.73.<br />
While short-term test–retest reliability is perhaps<br />
more important than internal consistency in an<br />
instrument of this kind, it is clear that there is<br />
a pressing need for a rigorous independent study<br />
of the reliability of the HBDI.<br />
Validity<br />
Herrmann’s categories appear to have good face,<br />
factorial and construct validity and are claimed to<br />
have catalytic validity when applied in education and<br />
in the business field. However, there have been very<br />
few studies of reliability or validity carried out by<br />
independent researchers, and we have not been able<br />
to locate any longitudinal studies.<br />
As the descriptors in the feedback from a scored<br />
personal profile include many of those used in the<br />
HBDI itself, there is a high probability that respondents<br />
will judge the instrument to have good face validity.<br />
Our own impression is that this is the case, as clusters<br />
of items seem to relate to one’s life experience. The<br />
many individual and group case illustrations provided<br />
by Herrmann in his books also have an authentic quality.<br />
Factorial validity has been established<br />
through the analysis of four data sets, three<br />
carried out by Bunderson (a nationally known<br />
American psychometrician contracted by Herrmann<br />
for the purpose) and one by Ho (unreferenced).<br />
These are presented in some detail in Appendix A<br />
of Herrmann (1989).<br />
Two factor analyses were based on the HBDI items<br />
alone. The first of these was performed on an early,<br />
91-item version of the HBDI, with a sample consisting<br />
of 439 people, including managers, other professionals<br />
and students. Nine factors were extracted, the<br />
first two being bipolar and corresponding to the main<br />
hypothesised dimensions. The most significant item<br />
loadings are presented in Table 26.<br />
The factor loadings were used to establish 12 sets<br />
of item parcels, which were then re-analysed, this time<br />
yielding a two-factor solution which provided an even<br />
better match to Herrmann’s theoretical model and led<br />
to a revision of the item scoring system. A higher-order<br />
left-right dominance factor was also found, supporting<br />
Herrmann’s concept of a closer affinity between<br />
quadrants associated with the same half of the brain<br />
(ie A with B; C with D).<br />
The factor analytic study by Ho (unreferenced) drew<br />
on a sample of 7989 people. This used the current<br />
120-item HBDI and yielded five factors, including<br />
a handedness factor, which was unrelated to the other<br />
four. The first four factors again confirmed Herrmann’s<br />
model and are presented in Table 27.