On the assessment of the test–retest of Riding’s CSA: A commentary on Peterson, Deary, and Austin

Abstract Peterson, Deary, and Austin (2003) considered the reliability of the Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) ( Riding, 1991 ). The CSA seeks to assess an individual’s position on each of two fundamental style dimensions – the Wholist-Analytic and the Verbal-Imagery dimensions. It presents a series of simple cognitive tasks, which the subjects may choose to process according to their preferred style. Performance on these test items is in terms of response times. The CSA comprises 40 items to assess the Wholist-Analytic and 48 for the Verbal-Imagery and typically takes 15–20 min to complete. It is intended to be suitable for a wide age and ability range, and applicable to a variety of contexts and cultures. The most important characteristic of any test of cognitive style is its temporal stability. Studies which attempt to establish test validity without definitive evidence of test reliability are lacking a basic foundation. Riding has not published any statistical data on the test–retest reliability of the CSA. Peterson et al. (2003) and Peterson (2003) claim to have carried out the primary evaluation of the CSA’s reliability. However we were the first to publish accurate test–retest reliability data on Riding’s CSA ( Redmond, Mullally, & Parkinson, 2002 ). This brief report addresses the issue as to who initially established the unreliability of the CSA in the first place and why Peterson, Deary and Austin’s claims are misleading and unsubstantiated.