Zalewski L J, Sink C A, Yachimowicz D J
College of Education, Governors State University.
J Gen Psychol. 1992 Jan;119(1):45-57. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1992.9921157.
Instructional methods in today's classroom are sometimes based on the notion of cerebral dominance. However, the link between hemispheric laterality and education practice is highly questionable. One instrument used by teachers to assess individual differences in cerebral dominance is a paper-and-pencil survey called Your Style of Learning and Thinking (SOLAT; Torrance, Reynolds, Riegel, & Ball, 1977). In this study, the authors explored the psychometric properties of the SOLAT in three phases. In the first phase, the authors examined SOLAT's construct validity. Contrary to cerebral dominance theory, a principal factor analysis revealed a seven-factor solution. The second phase was conducted to determine the SOLAT's internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients. As expected, these analyses generated low to moderate correlations. In the final phase, the authors further examined the SOLAT's construct validity by comparing the performance of brain-injured versus normal adults. With one exception, there were no significant differences. The results of this study did not support the notion of hemisphericity, at least not as measured by the SOLAT. Therefore, educators should not use the SOLAT to categorize students in terms of their preferred mode of processing information.
当今课堂上的教学方法有时基于大脑优势的概念。然而，半球偏侧性与教育实践之间的联系极具疑问。教师用来评估大脑优势个体差异的一种工具是一份名为《你的学习与思维方式》（SOLAT；托兰斯、雷诺兹、里格尔和鲍尔，1977年）的纸笔调查问卷。在本研究中，作者分三个阶段探讨了SOLAT的心理测量特性。在第一阶段，作者检验了SOLAT的结构效度。与大脑优势理论相反，主成分分析得出了一个七因素解。第二阶段旨在确定SOLAT的内部一致性和重测信度系数。不出所料，这些分析得出的相关性较低至中等。在最后阶段，作者通过比较脑损伤成年人与正常成年人的表现，进一步检验了SOLAT的结构效度。除了一个例外，没有显著差异。这项研究的结果不支持半球性的概念，至少用SOLAT测量时不支持。因此，教育工作者不应使用SOLAT根据学生偏好的信息处理模式对他们进行分类。
