Perceptital and Motor Skills, 1986, 63, 1243-1250. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1986
LEARNING STYLE A N D INTELLIGENCE
OF READING DISABLED STUDENTS1
RICHARD SINATRA, LOUIS PRIMAVERA. AND WILLIAM J. W A K E D
St. John's University
Summary.-This
study examined the relationship between elements o f
the Learning Style Inventory and various scales of the WISC-R
for reading
disabled students. Previous research generally suggests that reading disabled
students have preferences that tap the visual-spatial domain and have higher
WISC-R
Performance Scale and subtest scores than Verbal Scale and subtest
scores. Subjects with IQs of 9 0 or better o n either the Verbal o r Performance
Scsles of the WISC-R
and a consistency score of 75 or better o n the inventory were selected. Contrary to what might be expected, data generally showed
a nonrneaningful pattern of correlations between scales of the Learning Style
Inventory and WISC-R
Performance-type functioning. However, as an important part of the validation of the inventory, lack of association between the
two can be interpreted as support for its construct validity.
In recent years, the concept of learning style has emerged as a shaper of
American educational policy. Rather than focus on subject matter or curriculum mode, learning style refers to preferences of mode for receiving and learning information (Keefe, 1979; Kirby, 1979). Perrone and Pulvino (1977)
suggest that the assessment of an individual's scyle allows one to discover the
representational systems and learning preferences that aid learning strengths.
While Messick ( 1976), Claxton and Ralston ( 1978), and Kirby ( 1979)
examined a number of models and instruments for assessing style, many investigators have used various Wechsler Intelligence Scale profiles of both disabled
and academically proficient students to form hypotheses about their learning
and cognitive styles (Galvin, 1981). In a review of 20 studies using the
WISC-R, Kaufman (1981) noted that the Verbal and Performance scales
reflected greater variability for learning disabled subjects than for normals.
Learning dlsabled subjects have been equal to or superior to normal functioning
youngsters on visuospatial tasks (primarily the Performance Scale) but decidedly inferior to normals on tasks requiring linear sequencing-the domain
of the Verbal Scale (Rugel, 1974; Vance & Singer, 1979).
A number of studies have examined the relationship between elements
of the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978) and achievement in children at various grades from elementary to high school. Kaley
'Detailed copies of results and data analyses are available from the first author: Richard
Sinarra, Ph.D., Chairman. St. John's University. School of Education & Human Services,
Division of Human Services & Counseling,
- Marillac Hall. Grand Central and Utopia
Pkwys, Jamaica, NY 11439.
1244
R. SINATRA, ET AL.
( 1979), for example, found that for sixth grade children, reading achievement
significantly predicted learning style better than IQ. Further, she reported
that the better the child's reading, the more independent is the style of learning,
whereas the lower the child's reading, the more dependent is the style of learning. Similarly, Murray ( 1980) compared learning styles of 122 poor and good
achievers in reading at Grades 7 and 8. Murray's results showed that the better
readers were more responsible, more self-motivated, and preferred to learn alone
while the poorer readers were generally less motivated, in need of more strucmre, and preferred adult-guided learning. This study further supports an earlier finding by Wingo (1980) that preference for learning alone was the only
statistically significant variable on that inventory to predict high reading
achievement for 176 eighth grade students.
More recently, Price, Dunn, and Sanders ( 1981) found that for 85 elementary school children, high achievers in reading were significantly more selfmotivated, persistent, and reliable and required little food and no mobility
as measured by the inventory than low achievers in reading. Carbo (1983)
then showed that poor readers in Grades 2 through 8 had stronger tactile and
kinesthetic preferences than good readers and corroborated earlier findings that
the poor readers were less responsible and less self-motivated.
Such studies indicate that the learning styles of children identified as high
reading achievers in Grades 3 to 8 generally show high preference for inventory
elements such as self-motivation, liking to learn alone, and being persistent and
responsible. Children identified as low reading achievers, on the other hand,
generally score low on elements such as motivation, persistence, and responsibility, and high on requiring food intake and mobility, and need for learning
tactually and kinesthetically.
N o study, however, examined the relationship between elements of the
inventory and subtest scores of the WISC-R as a measure of intelligence.
Instead, most studies group students by intelligence, and then examine differences across these groups with regard to a number of other variables. Cody
(1983) for example, divided 240 students from grades 5-12 into Average
(IQ of 100-119), Gifted ( I Q of 130-139), and Highly Gifted ( I Q of 145 and
above) groups, and compared them for learning style preference and hemisphericity. In general, compared to students of average IQ, both gifted and
highly gifted students were more motivated and demonstrated a right-hemisphere processing style. Students of average IQ, on the other hand, preferred
a quiet environment, warm temperature, afternoon study, and showed a strong
need for structure.
In addition, psychoeducational research has shown that disabled readers
have distinct learning characteristics that favor a visuospatial, simultaneous
READING DISABILITY, LEARNING STYLE, IQ
1245
Friedman, 1975;
mode of processing (Symmes 8: Rapoport, 1972; Guyer
Witelson, 1976, 1977; Kaufman, 1979), as measured by various performance
subtests of the WISC-R and other tasks of visuospatial abilities while low
achievers in reading indicate a similar learning-style preference consistently
observed across studies of style (Carbo, 1983; Price, et al., 1981; Murray, 1980;
Kaley, 1979). The present study examined the relationship betv~eenelements
of the Learning Style Inventory and standard scores on various scales of the
WISC-R for students of average IQ but readin3 disabled. More specifically,
those inventory elements reflecting high need for structure, mobility, and need
for tactual, and kinesthetic learning along with low need for self-motivation,
persistence, responsibility, and independent learning were expected to correlate
better than chance with the Performance IQ and standard scores on performance
subtests of the WISC-R.
Slcbjects
From a sample of 159 reading-disabled subjects of average IQ who were
referred to the reading clinic of a large urban university, 90 boys and 35 girls
were selected to participate in the study. Of the 125 subjects, 6 were black,
6 were Hispanic, and 113 were Caucasian. These subjects met the minimum
criteria of at least an IQ of 90 or better on either the Verbal or Performance
scales of the WISC-R and a consistency score of 75 ( M = 72.6, SD = 38.5)
or better on the Learning Style Inventory. WISC-R means, standard deviations, and ranges are presented in Table 1, while these data for the inventory
are presented in Table 2.
Ninty-nine subjects ranged from Grade 3 to 10 ( M = 5.74, SD = 2.63)
while 26 subjects came from ungraded classrooms. All subjects had an average
age of 11.9 yr. (SD = 2.2, range = 9.6). Their average achievement results
as measured by the Wide Range Achievement Test was 4.89 (SD = 1.88, range
= 10.0) in Reading, 4.25 (SD = 1.62, range = 8.4) in Spelling, and 4.55
(SD = 1.44, range = 10.1) in Arithmetic ( N = 103). The average standard
scores for the three WRAT subtests were 90 for Reading, 85 for Spelling, and
82 for Arithmetic. Their instructional reading level as determined by a number
TABLE 1
MEAN, STANDARD
DEVIATION,
AND RANGEOF WISC-R
Measures
Verbal IQ
Performance IQ
Full Scale IQ
SCORES:
125 BOYSAND GIRLS
M
SD
Range
96.5 5
98.35
96.90
10.93
11.07
9.34
56.00
59.00
48.00
1246
R. SINATRA, ET AL.
TABLE 2
MEAN,STANDARD
DEVIATION,
AND RANGE
OF ELEMENTS
OF LEARNING
STYLE
INVENTORY: 125 BOYSAND GIRLS
Measures
M
SD
Range
Noise
Light
Warmth/Temperature
Design
Motivation
Persistence
Responsible
Structure
Learning Alone
Peer Orientation
Authority Figure Present
Learn in Several Ways
Auditory
Visual
Tactile
Kinesthetic
Requires Intake
Eveni ng/Morning
Late Morning
Afternoon
Needs Mobility
Adult Motivated
Teacher Motivated
1.43
2.58
3.06
1.83
4.45
2.97
2.64
2.40
4.68
2.14
1.40
1.41
3.03
1.50
4.50
4.71
2.34
2.70
1.02
3.26
2.47
3.83
3.56
1.48
1.39
1.32
1.05
0.80
0.95
1.74
1.12
2.10
2.04
1.20
1.00
1.05
0.85
1.70
1.34
1.96
1.75
1.06
1.40
1.74
0.47
0.75
8.00
5.00
6.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
of oral and silent reading assessments was near the beginning, Grade 4 ( M =
4.23, SD = 1.88, range = 8.5). The instructional reading level was based on
both assessment of comprehension and word recognition and was a more
realistic measure of each student's reading ability than just the word knowledge
score indicated by the WRAT Reading. Furthermore, about 25% of the subjects had been retained in one or more grades in school because they had
reading problems or related deficits in the language arts.
Materialr
The WISC-R for children contains three scale scores based on six Verbal
subtests, and six Performance subtests, which can be administered to children
between ages 6 yr., 9 mo. and 16 yr., 11 mo. In this study, the Mazes subtest
was not administered, and only subjects above 8-0 yr. who were administered
the Coding B subscale were included. This allowed a consistency with the
inventory which was standardized on students in Grade 3 and above. For
IQ scales, see Wechsler
estimates of test-retest reliabilities on the WISC-R
( 1974).
READING DISABILITY, LEARNING STYLE, IQ
1247
The Learning Style Inventory ( 1978, 1981) by Dunn, Dunn, and Price
is a self-report measure of learning style based on the selection of "True" or
"False" choices for each of the 104 items. The inventory has an easily administered format, an easy reading level, and can be paced for students with
poor reading habits and short attention spans. Students indicate their preferences or nonpreferences for 23 elements of learning style grouped into four
areas of environmental, emotional, sociological, and physical stimuli. For
estimates of validity and reliability see Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1981) and
Kirby ( 1979). The ranges of reliabilities are reported separately for each of
the 23 elements for 3669 males and females in Grades 3 through 10: Sound
(.71 to .82), Light (.62 to .77), Warmth (.65 to .70), Formal Design (.54
to .65), Motivated/Unmotivated (.27 to .48), Adult Motivated (.37 to .56),
Teacher Motivated ( 3 9 to .63), Persistent (.07 to .25), Responsible (.72 to
.76), Structure ( 6 1 to .71), Learning Alone (.80 to .83), Peer Motivated
Learning (.74 to .81), Learning with Adults (.57 to .66), Learning Through
New Ways (.26 to .38), Auditory ( 3 2 to .41), Visual (.04 to .22), Tactile
(.59 to .73), Kinesthetic ( 3 1 to .70), Requires Intake ( 3 2 to .84), Late
Morning ( 3 3 to .63), Afternoon (.59 to .69), Evening (.01 to .15), and
Needs Mobility ( 3 8 to .93). Correlations with scales (elements) of this
inventory with low reliability are to be interpreted with caution.
RESULTS
For the 125 subjects, correlations of the WISC-R
Full Scale IQs, the
Verbal Scale IQ and the six Verbal subtest scaled scores, and the Performance
Scale IQ and the five Performance subtest scaled scores with the 23 elements
that compose the four stimulus areas of the inventory were calculated. Of 23
possible correlations, for the WISC-R Full Scale IQs and the elements of the
inventory two ( 9 % of the total) were significant, but these values were very
low and mean~ngless (correlations ranged from -.I8 to .16). See Table 3
of WISC-R Full Scale, Verbal and Performance results with the inventory's
23 elements. In addition, of 161 possible correlations, of WISC-R Verbal IQs
and the Verbal subtest scaled scores with the elements of the inventory showed
that 22 or 14% of the total were significant. Again, these correlations were
quite low, ranging from .14 to 33.
Moreover, of 138 possible correlations, of WISC-R
Performance IQs
and the Performance subcesc scaled scores with the elements of the inventory
gave values for 27 ( o r 20% of the rotal) which were significant. Once again,
the range of these correlations was from -.I4 to .43, although five were above
.30. Those subjects who performed better on Picture Completion had greater
preference for Sound ( r = .39, p < .01) but were unmotivated (r = - .37, p
< .01). Those subjects who performed better on Object Assembly also had a
1248
R. SINATRA, ET AL.
TABLE 3
PEARSON
CORRELATIONS
AMONGWISC-R VERBAL,PERFORMANCE,
AND FULL
SCALE IQS A N D ELEMENTS
OF LEARN~NG
STYLE INVENTORY ( n = 125)
Measures
Sound
Light
Verbal
.038
,104
Performance
,132
-.008
Full Scale
,112
,068
Warmth
Formal Design
Motivated/Unmotivated
Persistent
Responsible
Structure
Learning Alone
Peer Oriented
Learning with Adults
Learning Several Ways
Auditory
Visual
Tactile
Kinesthetic
.Requires Intake
Evening
Late Morning
Afternoon
Mobility
Adult Motivated
Teacher Motivated
greater preference for Sound ( T = .43, p < .01), were unmotivated ( r =
-.36, p < .01) and preferred to learn with adults ( T = .31, p < .01). I n
general, however, there were surprisingly few and generally weak correlations
between the Performance IQs and the Performance subtest scaled scores,
which supposedly measure visuospatial processing, and the preference elements
of the inventory that tap the visuospatial domain. In other words, inventory
preferences for modality strengths poorly correlated with WISC-R
performance-type functioning.
Although the study did not provide meaningful correlations between elements of the inventory and certain scores from the WISC-R, the correlations
can be interpreted as supporting the construct validity of the inventory, i.e.,
the inventory is a measure of preference for learning not for intellectual performance, and as such, there should be little or no correlation between scores
on the inventory and the WISC-R scores. According to Campbell and Fiske
READING DISABILITY, LEARNING STYLE, I Q
1249
(1959), demonstrating discriminant validation of a test is as important as
demonstrating convergent validation because the former, in effect, helps to
define the boundary of a new construct relative to preexisting tests or measures
of constructs from which it was intended to differ. As an important part of
the validation of the inventory, that there was little to no correlation between
lends greater
the scores on the inventory and the subtests of the WISC-R,
credence to the construct validity of learning style preferences.
On the other hand, for a sample of reading disabled youngsters, who have
shown a preference for visuospatial learning (Bannatyne, 1971; Symmes &
Rapoport, 1972; Witelson, 1976, 1977) and who have generally scored higher
on the Performance scales than on Verbal scales of the WISC-R
(Symmes &
Rapoport, 1972; Kaufman, 1981), there may be some correlation between
strong positive or strong negative preferences on the inventory with certain
Because inventory scores were not
scales and subtests of the WISC-R.
separated into high and low preference categories, the present srudy does not
necessarily preclude some meaningful relationship between certain elements
of the inventory and Performance scores of the WISC-R.
REFERENCES
BANNATYNE,A. ( 1 9 7 1 ) Language, reading and learning disabilities. Springfield, IL:
Thomas.
CAMPBELL,D. T., & FISKE,D. W. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multirnethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56. 81-105.
CARBO. M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) Research in reading and learning style: implications for exceprional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 486-489.
CLAXTON, C S., RALSTON, Y. ( 1 9 7 8 ) Learning styles: their impact on teaching and
administration. Washington, D C : American Association of Higher Education.
(Report No. 1 0 )
CODY, C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) Learning styles, including hemispheric dominance: a comparative
study of average. gifted, and highly gifted students in grades five through twelve.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple Univer.
DUNN, R., DUNN, K.. & PRICE.G. E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence,
KS: Price Systems.
GALVIN.
G. A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) Uses and abuses of the WISC-R with the learning disabled.
Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 14, 326-329.
GUYER,B. L., & FRIEDMAN,
M. P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) Hemispheric processing and cognitive style
in learning disabled and normal children. Child Development, 46, 658-668.
KALEY, S. B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) Field dependence/indepeodence and learning styles in sixth
graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hofstra Univer.
KAUFMAN, A. S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) Cerebral specialization and intelligence resting. Journal of
Research and Development i n Education, 12, 96-107.
and learning disabilities assessment: state of
KAUFA4AN, A. S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) The WISC-R
the art. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 14, 520-526.
KEEPE, J. W . ( 1 9 7 9 ) Learning styles: an overview. In 0 . Kiernan (Ed.), Student
learning styles: diagnosing cnd prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals. Pp. 1-17.
KIRBY,P. (1979) Cognitive style, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (Information
Series No. 1 9 5 )
1250
R. SINATRA, ET AL.
MESSICK. S. A. (1976) Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. A.
Messick & Assoc. (Eds.), Individuality and learning. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Pp. 4-22.
MURRAY,C. A. (1980) The comparison of learning styles between high and low
reading achievement subjects in seventh and eighth grades in a public middle
school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International Univer.
PERRONE,P., & PULVINO, C. J. (1977) New directions in the guidance of the gifted
and the talented. G i f t e d Child Qrmrterly, 2 1 . 326-340.
PRICE,G. E.. DUNN. R.. & SANDERS.W . (1981) Reading achievement and learning
style characteristics. T h e Clearing Hortse, 5 4 , 223-226.
RUGEL,R. P. (1974) WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: a review with respect
to Bannatyne's recategorization. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 7, 48-54.
SYMMES.J. S., & RAPOPORT,J. L. (1972) Unexpected reading failure. American
JoitsmL o f Orthopsychiatry, 4 2 , 82-91.
VANCE, H. B., & SINGER,M. G. (1979) Recategorization of the WISC-R
subcest
scaled scores for learning disabled children. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 12,
487-491.
WECHSLER,D. (1974) Manual: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childre-Revised.
New York: Psychological Corp.
WINGO, L. H. (1980) Relationships among locus of motivation, sensory modality, and
grouping preferences of learning style to basic skills test performance in reading
and mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Memphis State Univer.
WITELSON, S. (1976) Abnormal right hemisphere specialization of developmental
dyslexia. In R. Knights, & D . Bakker (Eds.), T h e neuropsychology o f learning
disorders: theoretical approaches. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Pp.
233-255.
WITELSON,S. (1977) Neural and cognitive correlates of developmental dyslexia: age
and sex differences. In C. Shagass, S. Gershon, & A. Freidhoff (Eds.), Psychopathology and brain dysfunctions. New York: Raven. Pp. 15-49.
Accepted October 2, 1986.