|
Note: These statistics are from Version 2.0.
This is a measure of external reliability and refers to the
stability of an instrument over time. To assess this, a test
group of 142 people completed the Thinking Styles questionnaire
on two separate occasions, these being a minimum of three
months apart and a maximum of six months apart. The results
were correlated. Within a stable test each person would be
expect to respond in the same way on both occasions, and the
correlations between their scores would be high.
Overall, the People Focus dimensions were more stable over
time. This suggests that our approach to how we interact with
others is more consistent over time than the way we approach
tasks at work. The way we approach tasks and problems at work
may vary depending on the specific types of thinking which
we might consider appropriate to deal with the task at that
time.
Test Re-test Reliability Statistics
for Thinking Styles:
Sample size: 142 general population, male and female ages
18 - 65
| SENSORY FOCUS |
| Visual |
0.71 |
| Auditory |
0.69 |
| Kinaesthetic |
0.63 |
| Digital |
0.74 |
|
| PEOPLE FOCUS |
| Internal |
0.72 |
| External |
0.72 |
| Self |
0.68 |
| Others |
0.59 |
| Match |
0.62 |
| Mismatch |
0.72 |
| Collaborative |
0.71 |
| Competitive |
0.69 |
|
| TASK FOCUS
|
| Detail Conscious |
0.62 |
| Big Chunk |
0.66 |
| Left Brain |
0.69 |
| Right Brain |
0.73 |
| Procedural |
0.65 |
| Options |
0.54 |
| Move Away From |
0.57 |
| Move Towards |
0.57 |
| Reactive |
0.58 |
| Proactive |
0.65 |
| Sameness |
0.73 |
| Difference |
0.60 |
| Simplicity |
0.57 |
| Complexity |
0.71 |
|
If you would like to ask any questions or make any comments
to the author, please contact her at: fiona.bj@thinkingstyles.co.uk
or e-mail us via our Enquiry
Form.
|
