A Preregistered Validation Study of Methods Measuring Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles: What do We Actually Measure and How Well?
|Year of publication||2021|
|Type||Article in Periodical (without peer review)|
|MU Faculty or unit|
|Description||Cognitive styles are commonly studied constructs in cognitive psychology. It can be argued that measurement of these styles in the past had significant shortcomings in validity and reliability. The theory of analytic and holistic cognitive styles followed from traditional research of cognitive styles and attempted to overcome these shortcomings. Unfortunately, the psychometric properties of its measurement methods in many cases were debatable or not reported. New statistical approaches, such as analysis of reaction times, have been reported in the recent literature but remain overlooked by current research on analytic and holistic cognitive styles. The aim of this pre-registered study was to verify the psychometric properties (i.e., factor structure, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity with intelligence and personality, and divergent, concurrent and predictive validity) of several methods routinely applied in the field. We developed/adapted six methods, and selected several types frequently applied in cognitive style research: self-report questionnaires, methods based on rod-and-frame test principles, embedded figures, and methods based on hierarchical figures. The analysis was conducted on 392 Czech participants, with two data collection waves. The results indicate that the use of self-report questionnaires and methods based on the rod-and-frame principle may be unreliable, demonstrating unsatisfactory factor structure and no absence of association with intelligence. The use of embedded and hierarchical figures is recommended. Because the concurrent and divergent validity of the methods did not correspond with the original two-dimensional theory, we formulated a new three-level hierarchical model of analytic and holistic cognitive styles which better described our empirical findings.|