Talk:Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

Why was this page created?
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? MrZaius talk  07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MrZaius, I am struggling with your comments. I have added the title to your remarks to present them in the body of the discussion rather than as a headline.  The reason for the article is that the model is of interest.  That's it.  I am interested.  This month's Project Magazine (the in-house magazine of the UK Project Management profession for instance featured a prominent article on it.

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))

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)

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 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.


 * 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)

Discussion on discussion?
IMHO the most substantial part of the article, that on critical reviews, should really be moved here for some sort of resolution. I don't feel that the encyclopaedic article itself is the place for sttempting to summarise the detailed to-ing and fro-ing of a particular debate. More significantly the majority of the "critique of critique" refers to a Terence Hines (Terence Hines ??) for whom little information is given here. On the face of it he is "simply" a neurology professor. In science there are always voices for and against, some more cogent than others. In psychology this variance is of an entirely higher order. "Benchmarking" the HBDI against MBTI seems "weasely", and I have commented as such, especially as MBTI is so questionable and in so many ways. While it may or may not be true that HBDI is similarly flawed, the evidence should be presented rather than "damning by association". Any taxonomy has utility but that is not a measure of its theoretical validity. The theoretical (scientific) validity of a viewpoint is similarly no measure of its benefit. In my view the article should concentrate on what is, and not on what, in the view of its writers, it should be. I suggest that the section on Critical Review be drastically, and that some of the commentary be moved here. Also i suggest that some of the commentary here (or rather the factual evidence on which it is based) be moved/included in the article. I would particlularly like to see more on left-right and "front-back" brain differences as these are the "scientific" strand of the HBDI. LookingGlass (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuing to evolve the article sounds great, but i'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. For example, I'm not sure what you mean by resolution, but I'm all for summarizing the content or distilling it down more. It's wordy now, and overly focused on Hines, since I took five paragraphs to describe in detail Hines' attacks and studies refuting them. Could definitely use some reduction and perhaps structure by specific topic, but Hines was the most vocal critique of the system and his reasoning - that left/right brain lateralization is bunk - is shared by others. It is I think notable that the HBDI organizations still uses that right/left brain lateralization theory as a stated scientific basis, but the papers analyzing the system avoid that altogether or only critiqued in passing. I got the impression from my research that Ned's stated lateralization reasoning is ignored and only criticized by the academic community therefore, it is only put forth by the organization as a kind of pop explanation, and the real analysis of the instrument instead focuses on comparisons to other measures and the results of the test.


 * Question: what did you mean by damning by association? I think it is fair to characterize HBDI as one of the many cognitive style indices like MBTI and the academic publications are the ones making the comparisons mostly. I agree that HBDI has utility, and the academic community agrees in certain studies. They just also seem to attack the stated pseudo scientific basis that cognitive styles indicate a particular hemisphere bias and training a hemisphere will coincidentally train a cognitive style. The article could certainly spend more time on the stated lateralization theory instead of just linking to it, and then move some of the critical review section that relates directly to that into that section perhaps? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... is part of your request about removing the kind of chronological account of the debate? I agree that's not a great way to summarize things, more for detailed debate than trying to get a point across. I'll see what I can do there now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here comes the COI
has been amending the article today, watering down any referenced critical content. I suspect COI and will revet anything which was unreferenced later. I dropped a note on the user's page, but they do not appear to wish to speak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bluegreenredyellow
Changes by User:Bluegreenredyellow appear to me to whitews the article by changing "claimed" type terminology to categorical terminology. I have advised the user to provide reliable sources before repeating the changes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)