An analysis of three different measures of learning styles: can learning styles be identified in adult learners?

Purpose The present research aims to explore the validity and reliability of different learning styles instruments while also exploring the agreement between them and potential implications. Design/methodology/approach The study (n = 225) examined three instruments used to assess learning styles – Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI), the learning styles questionnaire (LSQ) and the revised learning style inventory (RLSI). Findings The study revealed that these three instruments exhibited low validity and reliability. Notably, the LSI indicated significant gender differences in learning styles, with females predominantly being convergers, a learning style less common among males. Both genders showed a preference for the reflective learning style in the LSQ. In addition, the LSQ identified multiple learning styles among a subset of participants, raising concerns about its consistency. While the LSI managed to associate learning styles with job positions, the LSQ failed to do so. The RLSI had low reliability and validity, suggesting that caution should be exercised when interpreting findings using these tools. Finally, the inter-rater reliability among these instruments was low, indicating that they might be measuring different constructs and were not able to identify the same learning style in the learner. Research limitations/implications The inconsistent results across tools raise questions about whether these inventories measure stable constructs or reflect more general tendencies. The tendency to accept vague or flattering feedback as personally meaningful i.e. Barnum effect, may further undermine their scientific value. Practical implications Given the limited validity, low reliability and poor agreement across instruments, practitioners should exercise caution when interpreting results from learning style assessments. As such, learning style inventories should not be used to guide individualized instruction or employee development without further evidence. Originality/value This study contributes to the ongoing debate on the validity of learning styles by evaluating multiple instruments, the first to assess these three instruments concurrently within a shared adult learner sample. Results emphasize the need to reconsider the role of learning style assessments in empirical research, particularly given the risk of cognitive biases such as the Barnum effect.