Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) is a theory of interpersonal relations, introduced by William Schutz in 1958. This theory mainly explains the interpersonal interactions of a local group of people. The theory is based on the belief that when people get together in a group, there are three main interpersonal needs they are looking to obtain – affection/openness, control and inclusion. Schutz developed a measuring instrument that contains six scales of nine-item questions, and this became version B (for 'Behavior'). This technique was created to measure how group members feel when it comes to inclusion, control, and affection/openness or to be able to get feedback from people in a group.

Free 5-8 day shipping within the U.S. When you order $25.00 of eligible items sold or fulfilled by Amazon. Active in similar fields, I had met Schutz in a personal growth workshop he conducted, used his FIRO-B instrument, as well as read a few of his books and articles from some time ago. Consequently, it was heartening to see how he drew. FIRO-B, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation - Behavior, is a questionnaire designed by Will Shutz, formerly of Stanford University, distributed by Consulting Psychologists Press of Palo Alto, California. FIRO-B measures a person's self-perception of how they characteristically relate to other people. In addition to giving information about how individuals. The present study is done to find out how students behave and what kind of behavior they expect from others. For this purpose, FIRO – B questionnaire developed by Schultz (1958) was used with a sample of 200 college students who were selected through stratified random sampling method from two.

Description[edit]

These categories measure how much interaction a person wants in the areas of socializing, leadership and responsibilities, and more intimate personal relations. FIRO-B was created, based on this theory, as a measurement instrument with scales that assess the behavioral aspects of the three dimensions. Scores are graded from 0–9 in scales of expressed and wanted behavior, which define how much a person expresses to others, and how much he wants from others. Schutz believed that FIRO scores in themselves were not terminal, and can and do change, and did not encourage typology; however, the four temperaments were eventually mapped to the scales of the scoring system, which led to the creation of a theory of five temperaments.

Schutz himself discussed the impact of extreme behavior in the areas of inclusion, control, and openness as indicated by scores on the FIRO-B (and the later Element-B). For each area of interpersonal need the following three types of behavior would be evident: (1) deficient, (2) excessive, and (3) ideal. Deficient was defined as indicating that an individual was not trying to directly satisfy the need. Excessive was defined as indicating that an individual was constantly trying to satisfy the need. Ideal referred to satisfaction of the need. From this, he identified the following types:

Schutz composed a 'Matrix of Relevant Interpersonal Data', which he called 'The Elephant'.^[1] Each area consisted of a smaller matrix of 'act' and 'feel' by 'Self to Other' (Action), 'Other to Self' (Reaction), and 'Self to Self'.

'Act' and 'Feel' divided the rows, which were:
'Desired Interpersonal Relations (Needs)', which denoted 'satisfactory relations' in each area;
'Ideal Interpersonal Relations' is what would correspond to 'moderate' expressed and wanted scores;
'Anxious Interpersonal Relations' was subdivided into rows of 'Too much activity' (covering high expressed scores) and 'Too little activity' (covering low expressed scores); both being divided into 'Act' and 'feel'.
The last row was 'Pathological Interpersonal relations', which was divided into 'too much' and 'too little', yielding:
'Psychotic (Schizophrenia)' as Too Little/Inclusion; (There was no 'Too Much/Inclusion')
'Obsessive-compulsive' as Too Much/Control and 'Psychopath' as Too Little/Control; and
'Neurotic' as too much and too little Affection.

'Self-to other (action)' corresponded to the expressed dimension, and 'Other to self (Reaction)' was the basis for the wanted dimension (though it is phrased in terms of what people do, rather than what we want them to do, which would be similar to the later Element B).We thus end up with the six dimensions as follows:

Expressed Inclusion (eI): 'I initiate interaction with others' (High: 'outstanding'; low 'shy')
Wanted Inclusion (wI): 'I want to be Included' (High: 'friendly'; low: 'aloof')
expressed Control (eC): 'I try to control others' (High: 'authoritarian'; low: 'absent-minded')
Wanted Control (wC): 'I want to be controlled' (High: 'submissive'; low: 'rebellious')
Expressed Affection (eA): 'I try to be close and personal' (High: 'empathetic'; low: 'cold')
Wanted Affection (wA): 'I want others to be close and personal with me' (High: 'needy'; low: 'defensive')

Putting them together, Schutz came up with fifteen 'Descriptive Schema and appropriate terminology for each Interpersonal Need Area':^[2]

In 1977, a clinical psychologist who worked with FIRO-B, Dr. Leo Ryan, produced maps of the scores for each area, called 'locator charts', and assigned names for all of the score ranges in his Clinical Interpretation of The FIRO-B:

However, to continue not to encourage typology, the names (which were for clinical interpretation primarily) are generally not used, and Element-B test results usually total the E, W, I, C and O scores individually. In the derivative 'five temperament' system, the different scores are grouped into their corresponding temperaments, and considered inborn types. One key difference is in the 'high wanted' scores in the area of Control. A distinction is made between men and women, with men being 'dependent', and women, rather than really being dependent, only being 'tolerant' of control by others. This is attributed to 'the stereotypical role of women in Western Culture', where they were often dependent, and have simply learned to tolerate control from others. This again, reflects FIRO's belief that these scores reflect learned behavior. In five temperament theory, no such distinction between the sexes is recognized, and high wanted scores in Control are seen as an inborn dependency need in both sexes.

Compatibility Theory[edit]

Another part of the theory is 'compatibility theory', which features the roles of originator, reciprocal, and interchange.^[3]

Originator compatibility, involves possible clashes between expressed and wanted behaviors. The example given, is two people with high eC and low wC (aka 'Mission Impossible' or 'Autocrat Rebellious'). They: 'will both want to originate the behaviors associatedwith the Control needs, and neither will want toreceive those behaviors. Both persons will want toset the agenda, take responsibility, and direct andstructure the actions of others; neither will feelcomfortable taking direction. The result could becompetition or even conflict.'

Reciprocal compatibility is (from another example given from Control), where high eC with low wC interacts with the opposite: low eC with high wC ('Openly Dependent', 'Loyal Lieutenant', or 'Abdicrat Submissive').

'there is a high degree of reciprocal compatibility because...one will take charge; the other will be happy to let him or her assume the responsibility.'

Interchange compatibility measures how much individuals share the same need strengths.The example is two people with both high eA and wA ('Optimist' or 'Overpersonal Personal-compliant'). They 'will be compatible because both will see Affection behaviors asthe basis of the relationship, and they will engageeach other around Affection needs.'(i.e. freely give and receive).

Further development[edit]

During the 1970s, Schutz revised and expanded FIRO theory and developed additional instruments (Schutz 1994, 1992) for measuring the new aspects of the theory, including Element B: Behavior (an improved version of FIRO-B); Element F: Feelings; Element S: Self; Element W: Work Relations; Element C: Close Relations; Element P: Parental Relationships; and Element O: Organizational Climate. Since 1984, these instruments have been known collectively as Elements of Awareness.Element B differs in expanding the definitions of Inclusion, Control, and Affection (renamed 'Openness'), into an additional six scores to measure how much a person wants to include, control, and be close to others, and how much other people include, control, and like to be close to the client. 'Expressed' is renamed 'See' (current behaviors) while 'Want' remains desired behaviors. Each of the three areas is split into 'Do' (initiating interaction with others) and 'Get' (the level received from others). Differences between See and Want scores indicate levels of dissatisfaction.^[4]

The original FIRO-B was sold to CPP, Inc. (now The Myers-Briggs Company^[5]), which also publishes the MBTI assessment, and FIRO Element B is owned by Business Consultants Network, Inc.

A third FIRO system, called FIRO-Space™ is being developed by Dr. Henry L. Thompson who developed the second one.^[6]

Correlations with MBTI[edit]

In a 1976 survey of seventy-five of the most widely used training instruments, the FIRO-B was found to be the most generally usable instrument in training.^{[citation needed]} The popularity of the FIRO-B began to wane as the MBTI became one of the instruments of choice in business. Since FIRO-B uses completely different scales from MBTI, and was not designed to measure inborn 'types,' it is often used together with the MBTI by workplaces. Now the two are offered together by The Myers-Briggs Company.^[7]

Statistical correlation has been observed between FIRO-B and MBTI by John W. Olmstead, and also Allen L. Hammer with Eugene R. Schnell; and between Element B and MBTI by Dr. Henry Dick Thompson.

FIRO-B and MBTI Correlations
* p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
Negative correlations associated with E, S, T and J.
Positive correlations associated with I, N, F and P.

Element B and MBTI Correlations
*Indicates statistical significance

References[edit]

1. ^Schutz (1958) p19
2. ^Schutz (1958) p60
3. ^Hammer, Schnell (2000) p.6
4. ^
5. ^https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/FIRO
6. ^http://www.hpsys.com/firo.htm
7. ^'FIRO and MBTI Instruments'. The Myers-Briggs Company. 2020-05-05.

• Schutz, W.C. (1958). FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Schnell, E.; Hammer, A. (2000). FIRO-B® Technical Guide. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
• Ryan, Leo R. (1977). Clinical Interpretation of the FIRO-B. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
• Schnell, E.; Hammer, A. (1997). 'Integrating the FIRO-B with the MBTI: Relationships, case examples, and interpretation strategies'. Developing Leaders. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
• Thompson, H (2000). 'FIRO Element B and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlations'. Watkinsville, GA: High Performing Systems, Inc.
• Olmstead, John W. (July 1999). 'An Exploratory Approach for Addressing Leadership Characteristics in Law Firms Using the Case of a Voluntary Bar Association'(PDF). Century University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2004-07-19.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
• Owen, William. 'Interpersonal Needs'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-01-27.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)

On-line & Off-line Survey Instruments:
Motivation, Cognitive Styles, Learning Styles,
and Learning Strategies

This collection is intended as a brief guide to the world of motivation, cognitive-style, learning-style, and learning-strategy questionnaires.

The first section of this bibliography is a list of websites which offers survey instruments related to motivation, learning preferences, and learning strategies. These consist of two kinds of sites:

interactive sites allow users to take the tests on-line and provide some information about the tests, however, they usually do not provide scoring algorithms.

source sites permit visitors to download and print ready-to-use tests. These sites vary as to the amount of information provided.

In the second section, a collection of instruments not available on the web is provided.

This bibliography is meant to provide teachers and researchers with a way to familiarize themselves with some of the instruments available. Users are warmly encouraged to seek more complete information about instruments before using them for research purposes and to observe copyrights in all instances.
-- Jeffrey A. Hatcher--

If you have suggestions or comments about the bibliography, please contact me at the following address: jhatcher@hawaii.edu

ON-LINESURVEY INSTRUMENTS

Personality Tests

The Keirsey Character Sorter
http://www.keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/kcs.cgi

The Keirsey Character Sorter classifies and describes people on the basis of types/temperament types. An individual’s temperament is seen as an innate predisposition which leads to the development of character. Individuals are classified as Rationals, Idealists, Artisans, or Guardians. Within these categories, distinctions are made using the following dimensions: extroversion-introversion, intuition-sensing, thinking-feeling, judgement-perception. The Keirsey test attempts to identify individuals’ 'skilled action roles' and produces the following system of classification:

Rational: Fieldmarshals, Masterminds, Inventors, Architects
Idealists: Teachers, Counselors, Champions, Healers
Artisans: Promoters, Crafters, Performers, Composers
Guardians: Supervisors, Inspectors, Providers, Protectors

Like the Myers-Briggs, the Keirsey test is based on Jung's theory of psychological types.

There are 16 items with four choices. Test-takers rank the choices in order. Responses are submitted and results returned.
For more information, go to: http://www.keirsey.com

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II
http://www.keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/newkts.cgi

The Keirsey Character Sorter II uses the four temperament types: Guardian, Artisan, Idealist, and Rational. This test adds a measure to distinguish types of intelligence: tactical, logistical, diplomatic, and strategic. The test has 70 items. Respondents select one of two options. Detailed information about the various types is provided. Responses are submitted and results returned.

Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/awl/survey/firo.html

A three-part, 54-item questionnaire which focuses on personal needs and behavior. It is typically used by companies to assess employee behavior. It provides insight into individual characteristics and compatibility. The test can be taken and submitted at this site. The scoring algorithm is not available.

A Personal Style Inventory
http://www.fln.vcu.edu/Intensive/PSI.html

This test is designed for college learning situations. It is based on a test developed by R. Craig Hogan and David W. Champagne which is based on the Myers-Briggs model. More information about the test is available in Supervisory and Management Skills: A Competency Based Training Program for Middle Managers of Educational Systems by Hogan & Champagne. There are 32 items with a 5-point scale. Responses are submitted and results returned. The site is not fully functioning at this time.

Extraversion/Introversion Inventory
http://www.psychtests.com/extraver.html

The test contains 27 items. In addition, there are 13 checkbox items at the end. Age and gender information are asked for but not required. Responses are submitted and scores returned with a brief interpretation.

Assertiveness Test
http://www.queendom.com/assert.html

This test consists of 32 items with a 5-point scale. Responses are submitted and scores returned with a brief interpretation.

Social Anxiety Test
http://www.queendom.com/soc_anx.html
This test consists of 25 items with a 5-point scale. Responses are submitted and scores returned with a brief interpretation.

Cognitive Style

Assessing Your Learning Style: An Inventory of Multiple Intelligences http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/lstest.htm

This is a 70-item questionnaire which is based on Gardner's multiple intelligences theory. A 5-point Likert scale is used. Responses are submitted and numbers returned. The site promises to return an assessment of preferences, descriptions, and recommendations in the future.

The Cognitive Style Instrument
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/awl/survey/cogsi.html

The test posits eight situations and requires test-takers to make three choices in each situation. There are 24 items. A score is given for each of the following areas: Intuitive, Thinking, Sensing, and Feeling. Mean scores by gender are also provided.

Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory
http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/tsscale.htm

The inventory focuses on thinking styles as revealed by approach to task completion. There are 104 items with a 7-point Likert scale. The site promises a link to brief interpretation page, but this is not currently available. An email address is required to take the inventory. To interpret the results, the site author recommends Robert Sternberg's Thinking Styles. At a later date, automated feedback with individualized descriptions may be available at the website.

Index Of Learning Styles (ILS)http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ilsweb.html

The Index of Learning Styles is designed to assess preferred learning style along four dimensions: active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/global. The test is based on a learning style model developed by Richard M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman. It consists of 44 items. The test can be taken or a paper and pencil version downloaded at: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ILS-a.htm.

The scoring rubric is available at the following site: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ILS-b.htm

A four-page descriptive handout for score interpretation can be downloaded at: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.htm

The developers are interested in receiving data from people who use the test. For information, go to: http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html

Learning Style Inventory http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/lernstyl.htm

This test is adapted from Barsch Learning Style Inventory by Jeffrey Barsch, Ed.D.
and Sensory Modality Checklist by Nancy A. Haynie. It contains 24 items with a 3-point scale. It assesses individual’s auditory, visual, and tactile preferences in learning situations. Brief descriptions of the three types are provided with links to teaching tips.

Learning Modality Assessment Toolhttp://www.asd.k12.ak.us/Homepages/ROnorato/modality.html
This test is adapted from Incentive Publications Inc., Nashville, TN (1990). It contains 14 items with three choices (auditory, visual, and kinesthetic) for each item. Scores are computed based on the number of times each modality was chosen. A brief description of modalities is provided. The page is formatted for printing.

The Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scaleshttp://www.fln.vcu.edu/Intensive/GRLSS.html

This test is designed to assess differences in learning styles among late post-secondary and university students. It focuses on interactional habits. The full test has 90 items and a 5-point scale. This site currently lists 12 items and is not working at present.

Index of Learning Styles
http://www.crc4mse.org/ILS/self_test.html

The test contains 44 items, each with two choices. Responses are submitted and scores returned.

Personal Learning Style Inventory
http://www.howtolearn.com/personal.html

The site claims that the Learning Style Inventory is currently being used by hundreds of corporations including NASA, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Motorola University, Bose, and Penn State University. They also claim that it is widely used by parents, teachers, and students around the world. The test has 36 items and checkboxes. Responses are submitted and results returned.

Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/awl/survey/toler.html

The test consists of 16 items with a 7-point Likert scale. Responses are submitted and scores returned. Scores are broken down into three parts: Novelty, Insolubility, and Complexity.

Innovative Attitude Scale
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/orgbeh/orgpub/survey/ias.html

The test consists of 20-items with a 5-point Likert scale. It focuses on attitudes toward work situations (task and interpersonal).

Motivation

Canfield's Learning Styles Inventory
http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/canfield1.html

This is a 30-item inventory which determines learning preferences. Each item has four choices which are ranked from 1 to 4 in terms of preference. Results are given for four categories: Conditions, Content, Mode, and Expectancy. Scores for each category can be interpreted in terms of the following criteria: Peer, Organization, Goal Setting, Competition, Instructor, Detail, Independence, Authority, Numeric, Qualitative, Inanimate, People, Listening, Reading, Iconic, Direct Experience, and Expectancy.

Locus of Control
http://www.psychtests.com/lc.html

This is a 42-item test with a 5-point scale. No information on scoring is provided. Responses are submitted and scores returned with a brief interpretation.

Locus of Control Scale
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/awl/survey/locus.html

This is a 29-item interactive questionnaire. For each item, there are two choices. The questionnaire is one in a collection of instruments available at the site. The website focuses on business skills development. No scoring information is provided. Responses are submitted and results returned.

Free Firo B Questionnaire Pdf

Learning Strategies

Time Management
http://www.cl.uh.edu/edu/awl/survey/time.html

This questionnaire consists of two sections. The first is suitable for individuals in a variety of settings; the second is specifically for people in managerial positions. Each section consists of 20 items. A 5-point scale is used. No information about the instrument is provided, and responses must be submitted for scoring.

Learning and Teaching Style Assessment

Temporal & Spatial Learning Situation Preferenceshttp://www.fln.vcu.edu/Intensive/chronotope.html

This questionnaire is a 52-item survey which looks at the following categories: sleep and rising habits; concentration and work ability times; eating, drinking and munchies; temperature, comfort, and noise. Within in each category, preferences are checked. Responses are submitted and results returned.

Teaching Style Inventory(adapted from Dunn & Dunn, 1993) http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/tchtest.htm

This test evaluates teachers as Individualized, Somewhat Individualized, Transitional, Somewhat Traditional, or Traditional based on responses to 67 items. The questionnaire is divided into six sections: Instructional Planning, Teaching Methods, Teaching Environment, Room Design, Evaluation Techniques, Teaching Characteristics, and Teaching Philosophy. A 5-point Likert scale is used. The scoring rubric is provided, and the page is formatted to be printed.

See http://www.quincy.edu/~mulrich/onlineinteractive.html for a number of other tests.

OFF-LINE SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

Personality

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(MBTI)– Myers-Briggs (1975)

The Myers-Briggs test is based on Carl Jung’s psychological type theory. The MBTI identifies personality types based on four scales: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving. This results in 16 different combinations or types.

For more information, go to:
http://www.mbti.com/text/orgmbtit.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/8405/ddli.html

Fitzgerald, C., & Kirby, L. K. (1997). Developing Leaders: Research and Applications in Psychological Type and Leadership Development. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Kolb Inventory– Kolb (1976, 1985)

This test assesses cognitive style based on preferences for learning modes: concrete experience (feeling), reflective observation (watching), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (doing). Students are classified as Divergers, Assimilators, Convergers, or Accommodators.

For more information, go to:

Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Styles Inventory. Boston: McBer and Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Learning Style Inventory and Technical Manual. Boston: McBer and Company.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale(FLCAS)- Horwitz (1985)

This test is designed to measure individuals’ anxiety in foreign language classroom situations. There are 33 items and a 5-point scoring scale. A description of the test can be found in Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety, Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-136.

Hartmann Boundary Questionnaire (HBQ) – Hartmann (1991)

The test examines individuals’ separation of internal, interpersonal, and external experiences. The test contains 146 items.
For more information, see the following:

Ehrman, M. (1998). MLAT for predicting success and advising students, Applied Language Learning, 9, 31-70.

Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale – Christopher M. Ely

The test is designed to assess students’ tolerance of uncertainty, incomplete understanding, and inability to express themselves fully in English. The test consists of 12 items with a 4-point scale. Scores for all items are totaled and then placed on a scale between 12 and 48. A sample of the test with scoring scale is provided in Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

For permission to use the scale, contact Christopher Ely, Department of English, College of Sciences and Humanities, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306-0460 or call (317) 285-8580.

Perceptual Learning Preference Survey – Kinsella (1993)

This is a 32-item test which identifies learner cognitive style preferences. A 3-point scale is used. The test and descriptive information is provided in Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

For permission to use the survey, contact Kate Kinsella, Multifunctional Resource Center/Northern California, 1212 Broadway Street, Suit 400, Oakland, CA 94612.

Aptitude

Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) – Carroll & Sapon (1959)

The MLAT is a 165-item language aptitude test developed in 1959. The test was developed for adults and high school students. It is divided into five parts: Number Learning, Phonetic Script, Spelling Clues, Words in Sentences, and Paired Associates.

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: MLAT Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery - (PLAB) Pimsleur (1965)

The (PLAB) was developed for students in grades 7 to 12.
For more information, see the following:

Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Motivation

Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)– Gardner (1985)

This is a large battery of tests which measures a number of different aspects of language learning. The instrument was originally used to measure attitudes of students studying English and French in Canada. Scales included attitudes toward French Canadians, interest in foreign languages, attitudes toward European French people, attitudes toward learning French, integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, anxiety, parental encouragement, motivational intensity, and desire to learn French. The scale instrument has been modified more recently.

For more information, see the following sources:

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning, Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.

Experience Sampling Method Questionnaire

This instrument contains 35 items. Informants fill out the questionnaire whenever they receive an electronic signal. The purpose is to capture attitudes, feelings, and details about level of engagement on task without relying on recall. The instrument was used by Schmidt & Savage (1992) and was adapted from Csikszentmihalyi & Larson (1987).

For more information, see the following sources:

Schmidt, R., & Savage, W. (1992). Challenge, Skill, and Motivation, PASAA, 22, 14-28.
Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 175, 526-536.

Schmidt et al.’s Motivation, Learning Preferences, and Strategy Use Questionnaire

Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) conducted an exploration of motivation, learning preferences, and strategy use among an Egyptian EFL population. The questionnaire is in three parts. The Motivation section contains 50 items which focus on the following components: intrinsic, extrinsic, personal goals, expectancy/control, attitudes, anxiety, and motivational strength. The Learning Preferences section has 22 items, and the Learning Strategies section has 25 items. A 6-point Likert scale was used.

For more information, see the following:

Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., and Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. (Technical Report #11), 9-70. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Affective Survey – Ehrmann and Oxford (1991)

This questionnaire contains 114 items and is divided into three sections: motivation, beliefs self, and anxiety. The scale draws upon the work of Gardner (1985b), Campbell (1987), Horwitz (1985), and Horwitz (1986). The instrument is unpublished at this time.

For more information, go to:
www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/si99/strategylist.htm

Strategies

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)– Pintrich et al (1989)

Designed at the National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCPIPTAL), this instrument has 85 items with a 7-point scale. There are two sections, a motivation section and a learning strategies section. Scores for subscales are derived by averaging scores within the subscales.

For more information, see the following sources:

Pintrich et al. (1989). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning (NCRIPTAL), School of Education, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Pintrich, P, R. and Johnson, G. R. (1990).Assessing and improving students' learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (The Changing Face of College Teaching), 42, 83-92.

Learning Preferences

The Learning Channel Preference Checklist– Lynn O’Brien (1990)

This instrument determines learners’ preferred modes of learning. Students are classified as Visual, Auditory, or Haptic (kinesthetic/tactile). This test consists of 36 items with a 5-point scale. A sample of the test with scoring scale is provided in Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

For permission to use the survey, contact Specific Diagnostic Studies, 1160 Nebel Street, Suite 130, Rockville, MD 20852.

Free Firo B Questionnaire

The National Association of Secondary Schools Principals’ Learning Style Profile (LSP)

The NASSP test consists of 125 items. The test assesses Cognitive Skills, Perceptual Preferences, Study Preferences, and Instructional Preferences. It is available in English and Spanish.

Free Firo B Questionnaire Free

For more information, go to: http://www.nassp.org/publications/learnstyles/index.html

Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire- Joy Reid (1984)

The questionnaire is designed to assess individuals’ preferences for learning. It uses auditory, visual, and kinesthetic/tactile distinctions. It also tests for preferences for group work vs. individual work. A 5-point scale is used, and major and minor preferences are identified. A sample of the test with scoring scale is provided in Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
For permission to use the questionnaire, contact Joy Reid, Department of English, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070.

Style Analysis Survey (SAS) – Oxford (1993)

This is a five-part instrument for self-assessment of learning preferences. There are 110 items on a 4-point scale. A sample of the test with scoring scale is provided in Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

For permission to use the questionnaire, contact Rebecca L. Oxford, Department of Curriculum, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487.