Talk:Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why was this page recreated? More importantly, what do any of the non-Hermann sources have to do with this article? Can we get a clearer case for notability/clearer explanation of the relevance of those sources? MrZaiustalk 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree with Deletion
I specifically stipulate that the existence of facts in these published books, journals, and other articles listed in the References section qualify as relevant and reliable sources to the use of and validity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance InstrumentTM (HBDITM). If we need to add links for these references, I will be more than happy to locate and add them. (Brenda D. Weaver 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Validation?
I'm confused as to what validation actually means and then how EduMetrics would actually re-validate or refute claims of non-validity. Currently that whole paragraph is a puzzle to me. It also has some POV issues, the citation titled "validated" merely points into the HBDI official web site. Could someone please instead find the original publication by Dr. Bunderson. Also, linking to his personal biography on the EduMetrics site is not relevant. The content in that paragraph about the systems' critics and their own POV is great, as is his daughter taking on the reigns. All that reads encyclopedic and neutral. But the content about "validation" really needs some help. Any experts here that can help with that? My first impulse was to delete all of it or reword it merely as a discussion of disagreement between researchers as to it's value as a system. Then I'd move the sentence about his daughter out to a new section or to the top section somewhere. And for the record, I'm blue/yellow/red (A/C/D) in this system. But perhaps I'm being more green (B) in being this precise about things. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, since no one had any comments I'm going to excise some pieces. Please comment here about any changes I've made. I'm watching this page currently. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] COI
I note that this article has been constructed, in the main, by Brenda D. Weaver, IT & webmaster of Herman International. She should read, and one would wish she would respect WP:COI. For me, it's thinly disguised spam. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's notable that the single "research" paper cited as validation [1] of the model appears to be commissioned by Hermann International, is used on their website as a puff piece, does /not/ appear to be peer reviewed, and is described thus: "and was prepared to answer questions that both lay users and professionals in measurement might ask about the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument® (HBDI®):". Does that sound like a scientific paper, or does that sound like a user manual written by the company promoting the product? And blow me down if the author is not the CEO of The EduMetrics Institute, the organisation that maintains HBDI. Cosy or what? And whereas an inference is made that the Allinson and Hayes research (peer reviewed in the Journal of Management Studies) is affected by their "competing assessment", no such advisory as to the allegiance and lack of peer review of Bunderson's paper is noted. This sort of thing, Brenda, is a nutshell example of exactly that which WP:COI warns you of, and is exactly why you should cease editing the article and confine yourself to discussion on this page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've now substantially revised the article, making the following changes for the following reasons:
- Moved the description of the model out of the intro
- Removed entirely the usage section, which reads as a puff piece, and is uncited.
- Amended the studies section to make clearer the provenance of the dissertation; the peer reviewed status of the Allinson research; and removed the assertion that Allinson has a competing model. If there is some evidence that the fact of the competing model affected Allinson's conclusion about HBDI then it should be adduced before suggesting a disparaging and professionally damaging inference.
- Corrected the date of the dissertation, which interestingly enough seems to have shifted from 1980 (according to the original URL & text added by Brenda) to 1985, according to the HI website. Easy mistake to make.
- I've now substantially revised the article, making the following changes for the following reasons:
-
- There is a reference to Hines, T. (1987). Left brain/right brain mythology and implications for management and training. Academy of Management Review, 12, 600-606. which is not explained in the article. The abstract of JSTOR suggests that Hines might also be a critic of HBDI. It would be handy if we could get a copy of both articles to better represent what they have to say about HBDI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a number of citations on HBDI in the peer reviewed Journal of Psychological Type (archives at capt.org, a group focused on MBTI). But I'm still not sure what "validity" means with respect to this type of instrument. There is one measure called differential item functioning (DIF) as a way to test self-report based instruments for errors. I found a review of MBTI in 1993 using that measure as well as a review of HBDI in 2007 using it.
But what's the issue exactly? Does validity mean that the four cognitive styles described in HBDI are reasonable categories? or does validity mean that the instrument is sufficient for categorizing or measuring dominance or preference in a particular category?
Question re COI: Allinson and Hayes have a competing type indicator, called Cognitive Style Index (CSI). So when citing them as a critique we need to declare that they're not completely impartial. You'll find an interesting comment about them on the cognitive style article as having similarities to the left brain / right brain lateralisation theory of Robert E. Ornstein as well, but I'm not sure where that claim comes from. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... validity and structural validity seem to have technical usage. i'm not sure there is a simple definition after reading these papers. we might want to take cure in using that term or be more specific about it. I made substantial expansion of the article, I hope I didn't tread too much on your previous work. But it did really seem that the critiques about the instruments use of pop lateralization terminology are significant as well as that usage being separate from any value of the instrument in characterizing thinking styles. So I tried to make that distinction somewhat. I really find their use of the right-brain and left-brain thing unfortunate. I can see how it is common as a colloquial way to describing things, but it certainly bothers researchers and reasonably so. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)