Psychometric properties of learning style instruments: a systematic review Propiedades psicométricas de los instrumentos de estilo de aprendizaje: una revisión sistemática
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
The most widely used learning style instruments in higher education—KLSI (Kolb), ILS (Felder–Silverman), CHAEA (Honey–Alonso), and VARK—enjoy sustained popularity but show heterogeneous psychometric evidence. The objective of this research is to identify the reliability ( α / ω /test–retest), internal structure (AFE/AFC/SEM), and validity (content, convergent/discriminant) of the KLSI, ILS (Felder-Silverman), CHAEA, and VARK instruments in university populations through a systematic review of the literature. An exploratory systematic review was conducted based on Fernández-Sánchez et al. The psychometric properties of KLSI, ILS, CHAEA, and VARK in higher education were investigated to determine which instrument shows the best metrics. Studies (2010-2025) were searched for in Scopus, Scielo , MedLine, Dialnet , and Google Scholar. Rayyan was used, 46 articles were reviewed, and 15 were selected. reliability (α): KLSI (0.82) ≥ CHAEA (0.78) ≈ VARK (0.78) and ILS (with weak subscales 0.66). Structure (AFE/AFC): KLSI: adequate with adjustments; CHAEA favorable; CHAEA-36: unstable; ILS: fragmentation in subscales; VARK: CFA/Rasch support, but with nuances. Test–retest: best documented in ILS (medicine) and KLSI; less so in recent CHAEA/VARK. KLSI has the strongest psychometric support, although it requires AFC and language invariance. CHAEA has variable evidence and its abbreviated versions require structural revision. ILS continues to be used, but its structure is unstable and needs refinement with AFC. VARK has partial support and requires current confirmatory validations
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
Citas
Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2015). A psychometric analysis of reliability and validity of the index of learning styles (ILS). International Journal of Psychological Studies, 7(3), 46-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v7n3p46
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Cardozo, L.-A., Rodrigues-Bezerra, D., Molano-Sotelo, E., Moreno-Jiménez, J., Beltrán-Ahumada, C., & Borrero-Ovalle, F. (2021). Propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de estilos de aprendizaje «CHAEA-36» en estudiantes universitarios. Estudios sobre Educación, 40, 75-101. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.40.75-101
Carlos Saúl Juárez Lugo. (2014). PROPIEDADES PSICOMÉTRICAS DEL CUESTIONARIO HONEY - ALONSO DE ESTILOS DE APRENDIZAJE (CHAEA) EN UNA MUESTRA MEXICANA | Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje. Recuperado 21 de octubre de 2025, de https://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/1011?utm_source=
Cid, F. M., Ferro, E. F., Flores, P. G., Gajardo, E. P., Rebolledo, M. F., & Véliz, C. V. (2018). Propiedades psicométricas del inventario de estilos de aprendizaje de Kolb y del cuestionario de Felder-Silverman en estudiantes de educación física de Santiago de Chile. Revista Ciencias de la Actividad Física, 19(1), 1-11. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5256/525655068005/html/
Fernández, J. E. V. (2023). Cuestionario Honey-Alonso de estilos de aprendizaje (CHAEA). Propiedades psicométricas en estudiantes universitarios colombianos: Honey-Alonso learning styles questionnaire (CHAEA). Psychometric properties in Colombian university students. Psicogente, 26(50). https://doi.org/10.17081/psico.26.50.6231
Fernández-Sánchez, H., King, K., & Enríquez-Hernández, C. B. (2020). Revisiones Sistemáticas Exploratorias como metodología para la síntesis del conocimiento científico. Enfermería universitaria, 17(1), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.22201/eneo.23958421e.2020.1.697
Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., Abal, F., & Fernández-Liporace, M. (2020). Cuestionario Honey-Alonso de Estilos de Aprendizaje: Nuevas evidencias psicométricas en población argentina. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 23(2), 328-338. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2020.23.2.13
Hosford, C. C., & Siders, W. A. (2010). Felder-Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles: Internal consistency, temporal stability, and factor structure. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 22(4), 298-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2010.512832
Julia S. W. Wong & Kenny C. W. Chin. (2018). Reliability of the VARK Questionnaire in Chinese Nursing Undergraduates. US-China Education Review A, 8(8). https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623X/2018.08.002
Kolb, A. Y. (s. f.). THE KOLB LEARNING STLE INVENTORY.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (s. f.). THE KOLB LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY- Version 4.0.
Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S. H., Wise, J. C., & Felder, R. M. (2007). A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles©. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00941.x
Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009
Nhadumbuque, G. C., Gomes, A., & Marcelino, M. J. (2024). Validation of Felder-Solomon Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire and Learning Style Preferences in the Mozambique Context. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies 2024, CompSysTech ’24, 192-199. https://doi.org/10.1145/3674912.3674923
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Pickworth, G. E., & Schoeman, W. J. (2000). The Psychometric Properties of the Learning Style Inventory and the Learning Style Questionnaire: Two Normative Measures of Learning Styles. South African Journal of Psychology, 30(2), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630003000206
Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2008). Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Style Inventories in a Greek Sample: Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ869318
Rashvand Semiyari, S., & Azad, M. (2022). Development and Validation of KOLB 4.0 Learning Style Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, (Online First). https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2022.27097.1254
Validez y confiabilidad del cuestionario VARK®. (2020, agosto 29). https://vark-learn.com/validity-and-reliability/
Villarreal-Fernández, J. E. (2023). Cuestionario Honey-Alonso de estilos de aprendizaje (CHAEA). Propiedades psicométricas en estudiantes universitarios colombianos. Psicogente, 26(50), 46-69. https://doi.org/10.17081/psico.26.50.6231
Wang, J., & Mendori, T. (2015). The Reliability and Validity of Felder- Silverman Index of Learning Styles in Mandarin Version. Information Engineering Express, 1(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.52731/iee.v1.i3.38