CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Learning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Whole Brain Model: Adaptation of the HBDI for Business Students

Open access
Egoávil, José Ventura, Díaz, Hugo Vértiz·2026·European Journal of Psychology Open
DOI 10.1024/2673-8627/a000114
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) is an instrument designed to assess cognitive preferences based on the Whole Brain Model (logical-analytical, sequential-organized, interpersonal-emotional, and holistic-creative quadrants). Despite its international application, a validated adaptation for the Latin American context is absent. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the HBDI ( Jiménez, 2006 ) within a Latin American university student population. Methods: Data from 578 business university students were subjected to EFA to examine structural validity, internal consistency analysis for reliability, and a CFA to confirm the simplified factorial structure. Results: EFA yielded a reduced 11-item structure in Study 1, which was further refined to an 8-item solution (2 items per quadrant) in Study 2. Discussion/conclusion: The findings indicated robust factorial validity, and acceptable internal consistency for each subscale provides evidence of the adapted HBDI for use within Latin American university settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1024/2673-8627/a000114

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 89

  1. 10.4236/oalib.1101436 · DOI
  2. 10.4236/oalib.1105293 · DOI
  3. 10.54802/r.v3.n2.2021.78 · DOI
  4. 10.26490/uncp.horizonteciencia.2021.20.778 · DOI
  5. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-082823-073701 · DOI
  6. 10.1093/cercor/bhad537 · DOI
  7. Bandalos, D. L. & Finney, S. J. (2018). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock, L. M. Stapleton, R. O. Mueller, The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 98–122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649 · DOI
  8. 10.18637/jss.v046.i04 · DOI
  9. 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/hbm.22678 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/00461520.2023.2208670 · DOI
  12. Brown T. A., 2015, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
  13. 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114112 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z · DOI
  15. 10.7275/jyj1-4868 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1007/BF02291565 · DOI
  17. Davidson J. E., 2003, The psychology of problem solving, 10.1017/CBO9780511615771 · DOI
  18. del Valle M., 2021, Alternativas en Psicología, 47, 22
  19. 10.7334/psicothema2022.321 · DOI
  20. Elosua Oliden P., 2008, Psicothema, 20, 896
  21. 10.15581/004.36.85-111 · DOI
  22. Etiubon R., 2024, Nigeria. AJSTME, 10, 292
  23. 10.1038/s42003-023-05518-2 · DOI
  24. Flores E., 2021, Estilos de pensamiento y estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios [Thinking styles and learning styles in university students] (Master Thesis)
  25. Flores E., 2015, EmásF, Revista Digital de Educación Física, 6, 81
  26. 10.2307/3151312 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Frías-Navarro D., 2012, Suma Psicológica, 19, 47
  28. 10.1016/j.cortex.2023.03.001 · DOI
  29. 10.15332/24224529.8731 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.005 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.010 · DOI
  32. 10.4324/9781315545899 · DOI
  33. 10.52547/rme.12.4.5 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/0013164411422252 · DOI
  35. Hair J. F., 2019, Multivariate data analysis
  36. Hair J. F., 1999, Análisis multivariante [Multivariate data analysis]
  37. 10.1177/1094428104263675 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Hernández Buelvas, E. J., Vega Martínez, A. A. & Barbera Alvarado, N. (2019). Diagnóstico de la dominancia cerebral como estrategia para la conformación de equipos de investigación [Diagnosis of brain dominance as a strategy for the formation of research teams]. In Y. Chirinos Araque, A. G. Ramírez García, R. Godínez López, N. Barbera Alvarado, & D. C. Rojas Nieves (Eds.), Tendencias en la investigación universitaria: Una visión desde Latinoamérica (Vol. 8 , pp. 150–160). Fondo Editorial Universitario Servando Garcés de la Universidad Politécnica Territorial de Falcón Alonso Gamero · DOI
  39. Herrmann N., 1982, Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)
  40. Herrmann N., 1989, The creative brain
  41. Hines T. M., 1987, Academy of Management Review, 12, 600, 10.2307/258066 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1080/03075079.2016.1152463 · DOI
  46. 10.1038/s41467-022-28323-7 · DOI
  47. Jiménez C. A., 2006, Diagnóstico teoría del cerebro total [Diagnosis of the whole-brain theory]
  48. Lees J. A., 2007, Theses and Dissertations., 1196
  49. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.798900 · DOI
  50. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107554 · DOI
  51. 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361 · DOI
  52. 10.2307/2334770 · DOI
  53. Marsh, H., Hau, K. & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Multivariate applications book series. Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Erlbaum.
  54. 10.3389/fncel.2019.00066 · DOI
  55. 10.1080/10400419.2005.9651476 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.10.056 · DOI
  57. 10.1371/journal.pone.0071275 · DOI
  58. 10.55777/rea.v13i25.1526 · DOI
  59. Osborne J. W., 2014, Best practices in exploratory factor analysis
  60. 10.7275/hb2g-m060 · DOI
  61. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-10-03990.2003 · DOI
  62. 10.15700/saje.v42n3a2088 · DOI
  63. Razali N. M., 2011, Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2, 21
  64. Rini P., 1989, The validity of the Herrmann brain dominance instrument
  65. 10.33326/26176068.2022.1.1513 · DOI
  66. 10.1093/braincomms/fcaa003 · DOI
  67. 10.13189/ujer.2018.061107 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.027 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.22550/2174-0909.2633 · DOI
  70. 10.1002/yd.20450 · DOI
  71. Shelnutt, J. W., Middleton, S. G., Buch, K. A. & Lumsdaine, M. (1996, June 23–26). Forming student project teams based on Herrmann Brain Dominance (HBDI) results [Paper presentation]. 1996 ASEE Annual Conference , Washington, DC, United States. https://peer.asee.org/forming-student-project-teams-based-on-hermann-brain-dominance-hbdi-results
  72. 10.46997/revecuatneurol29300074 · DOI
  73. 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102 · DOI
  74. Srivastava A., 2023, Science Studies, 12, 1
  75. 10.4103/AMH.AMH_3_20 · DOI
  76. Tabachnick B. G., 2013, Using multivariate statistics
  77. 10.1007/s11336-007-9014-3 · DOI
  78. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd · DOI · Paper page
  79. 10.33225/pec/22.80.602 · DOI
  80. 10.15381/pc.v24i2.17457 · DOI
  81. Torrance E. P., 1988, Style of learning and thinking: Administrator’s manual
  82. 10.1111/mbe.12249 · DOI
  83. 10.3390/brainsci12030346 · DOI
  84. 10.23668/psycharchives.16224 · DOI
  85. Washington T.N., 2015, Columbia Journalism Review, 54, 12
  86. 10.33151/ajp.8.3.93 · DOI
  87. 10.12746/swrccc.v9i37.805 · DOI
  88. 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079 · DOI · Paper page
  89. 10.1027/1614-0001/a000147 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Egoávil, J. V., & Díaz, H. V.
Affiliations
Esan University (PE)
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Psychology Open
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2026-08-19
ISSN
2673-8627 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1024/2673-8627/a000114
OpenAlex
W7203787461
Cited by
0
References
2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychology Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
whole-brain model, cognitive preferences, Spanish adaptation, psychometric validation, factor structure, internal consistency, university students, Latin America, business students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review