On the assessment of cognitive style: four red herrings

Abstract

This paper is a reply to Riding's (2002) four main comments on Peterson, Deary, and Austin's (2002) paper ‘The Reliability of Riding's Cognitive Style Analysis Test.’ Riding's comments centre around Peterson et al.'s sample size, sample composition, test interval, and the alleged use of a different test from the original. We argue that the first three of these comments are incorrect and the fourth is disingenuous and that they merely distract from, rather than criticise, our simple, novel, positive finding that the reliability of the wholistic–analytic dimension of the Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) test can be improved.