Open AccessNote—On the Validity of the Analytic-Heuristic Instrument Utilized in “The Minnesota Experiments”: A Reply
Author(s) -
Norman L. Chervany,
Gary W. Dickson
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
management science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.954
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1526-5501
pISSN - 0025-1909
DOI - 10.1287/mnsc.24.10.1091
Subject(s) - heuristic , external validity , dimension (graph theory) , interpretation (philosophy) , reliability (semiconductor) , style (visual arts) , validity , cognition , psychology , internal validity , cognitive style , measure (data warehouse) , computer science , applied psychology , operations research , artificial intelligence , social psychology , psychometrics , mathematics , data mining , statistics , clinical psychology , power (physics) , physics , archaeology , quantum mechanics , neuroscience , pure mathematics , history , programming language
Zmud [Zmud, R. W. On the validity of the analytic-heuristic instrument utilized in `The Minnesota Experiments'. Management Sci. (this issue).] has raised some important questions about the interpretation of the cognitive style results reported in "The Minnesota Experiments" [Dickson, G. W., J. A. Senn, N. L. Chervany. 1977. Research in management information systems: the Minnesota experiments. Management Sci. 23 (May) 913-923.]. His specific challenges are (1) the cognitive style instrument used in "The Minnesota Experiments" did not measure the "full breadth" of the analytic-heuristic dimension of cognitive style and (2) research studies must report instrument reliability and validity data to aid the reader in interpreting the results.