How to Measure Adaptive and Innovative Cognitive Styles: Adaptation of the M. Kirton Questionnaire for Education

Keywords: cognitive style, innovators, adaptors, KAI, scale adaptation, Russian language version, psychometric assessment, teachers, school staff


As the research focus shifts from the technical to the human side of education, the relevance of measuring socio-psychological traits is growing. Despite proven validity and demand for the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory, or KAI, in international and Russian studies, the scale has not previously been adapted for the Russian-speaking audience. The article describes the results of scale adaptation aimed at estimating the cognitive style of Russian teachers and school administrators. The proposed version of the translation considers the specifics of the Russian language and the context of the educational sphere, simultaneously being equivalent in meaning to the original scale. The readability check indicated that the question wordings fit the education level of the target audience. An iterative process of development and empirical testing of the psychometric properties (N1 = 137, N2 = 1236, N3 = 204) led to satisfactory scores for the three scales, items, and response categories. The analysis relies on the classical test theory and the IRT-RSM model. The final questionnaire includes 26 items and allows us to evaluate the three factors: «Originality and independence», «Thoroughness and self-organization», and «Inertia and request for instructions». Besides, the article demonstrates that the adapted version of the questionnaire does not show increased social desirability. The proposed tool is potentially useful for research and practical purposes to study the cognitive styles of teachers and school administrators, as well as groups close to them, including workers at other levels of education and the social sphere in general. The article provides a full version of the final methodology and practical recommendations for managing innovators and adaptors within an educational organization.


Download data is not yet available.


Alalouch C. (2021) Cognitive Styles, Gender, and Student Academic Performance in Engineering Education. Education Sciences, vol. 11, no 9, Article no 502.

Al-Ghazali B.M. (2021) Understanding Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior through Interactionist Perspective: The Effects of Working Style, Supportive Noncontrolling Supervision and Job Complexity. European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 26, no 1, pp. 230–255.

Andrich D. (1978) A Rating Formulation for Ordered Response Categories. Psychometrika, vol. 43, December, pp. 561–573.

Andersen E.B. (1997) The Rating Scale Model. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (eds W.J. Linden, R.K. Hambleton), New York, NY: Springer, pp. 67–84.

Bagozzi R.P., Foxall G.R. (1996) Construct Validation of a Measure of Adaptive-Innovative Cognitive Styles in Consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 13, no 3, pp. 201–213. https://doi:10.1016/0167-8116(96)00010-9

Bobic M., Davis E., Cunningham R. (1999) The Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory. Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 19, no 2, pp. 18–31.

Cahill A.M. (2011) Use of Teams to Accomplish Radical Organization Change: Examining the Influence of Team Cognitive Style and Leader Emotional Intelligence (PhD Thesis). New York: Columbia University.

Cantos P., Almela Á. (2019) Readability Indices for the Assessment of Textbooks: A Feasibility Study in the Context of EFL. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi:10.35869/vial.v0i16.92

Chan D. (2010) Detection of Differential Item Functioning on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory Using Multiple-Group Mean and Covariance Structure Analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 35, no 2, pp. 169–199,

Clapp R., de Ciantis S., Ruckthum V., Cornelius N. (2010) The Use of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory in Thailand: An Exploratory Study. AU-GSB e-Journal, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 3–24.

Clapp R.G., Rucktum V. (2017) The Cross-Cultural Use of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory: A Further Exploration. ABAC ODI Journal. Vision. Action. Outcome, vol. 4, no 2, Article no 104.

Coleman M., Liau T.L. (1975) A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine Scoring, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, no 2, pp. 283–284.

Crowne D.P., Marlowe D. (1964) The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

Deprez J., Cools E., Robijn W., Euwema M. (2021) Choice for an Entrepreneurial Career: Do Cognitive Styles Matter? Entrepreneurship Research Journal, vol. 11, no 1, Article no 20190003.

Efimova G.Z. (2015) Male and Female Teachers: Similarities and Differences in the Sociological Portraits. Naukovedenie, vol. 7, no 5.

Ettlie J., O'Keefe R. (2007) Innovative Attitudes, Values, and Intentions in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 19, no 2, pp. 163–182.

Foxall G.R., Hackett P.M.W. (1994) Styles of Managerial Creativity: A Comparison of Adaption-Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. British Journal of Management, vol. 5, no 2, pp. 85–100.

Fullan M. (2018) Surreal Change. The Real Life of Transforming Public Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Goldsmith R., Matherly T.A. (1986) The Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory, Faking, and Social Desirability: A Replication and Extension. Psychological Reports, vol. 58, no 1, pp. 269–270.

Gregoire J. (2018) ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing, vol. 18, no 2, pp. 101–134.

Hamby T., Peterson R.A. (2016) A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relationship between Scale-Item Length, Label Format, and Reliability. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, no 12, pp. 89–96.

Johnson K.L., Danis W.M., Dollinger M.J. (2008) Are You an Innovator or Adaptor? The Impact of Cognitive Propensity on Venture Expectations and Outcomes. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 29-45.

Im S., Hu M.Y. (2005) Revisiting the Factor Structure of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Psychological Reports, vol. 96, no 2, pp. 408–410E.

Kapuza A., Tyumeneva Yu. (2016) Reliability and Dimensionality of the TALIS Scale of Social Desirability: Evidence from the Item Response Theory. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 6, pp. 14–29 (In Russian).

Kirton M.J. (1994) A Theory of Cognitive Style. Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Problem Solving (ed. M.J. Kirton), London: Routledge, pp. 1–33.

Kirton M.J. (1980) Adaptors and Innovators in Organizations. Human Relations, vol. 33, no 4, pp. 213–224.

Kirton M.J. (1976) Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 61, no 5, pp. 622–629.

Kirton M.J., Pender S. (1982) The Adaption-Innovation Continuum, Occupational Type, and Course Selection. Psychological Reports, vol. 51, no 3, pp. 883–886.

Kubes M. (1989) The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory in Czechoslovakia. Proceedings of International Conference "Psychology of Creative Scientific Work" (Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia), pp. 151–167.

Lapushinskaya G.K. (2014) Grants for Schools: Features and Opportunities. Narodnoe obrazovanie, no 4, pp. 111–117 (In Russian).

Linacre J.M. (2002) Optimizing Rating Scale Category Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 85–106.

McKenna F.P. (1984) Measures of Field Dependence: Cognitive Style or Cognitive Ability? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 47, no 3, pp. 593–603.

Merton R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press.

Messick F.P. (1984) The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice. Educational Psychologist, vol. 19, no 2, pp. 59–74.

Mojavezi A., Tamiz M.P. (2012) The Impact of Teacher Self-Efficacy on the Students’ Motivation and Achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 2, no 3, pp. 483–491.

Oborneva I.V. (2005) Automation of Text Perception Quality Assessment. MCU Journal of Informatics and Informatization of Education, vol. 2, no 5, pp. 221–233 (In Russian).

Opekina T.P. (2022) Relationship of the Generalized Type of Partner Affection and the Functionality of Close Relationships. Proceedings of the VI International Scientific Conference "Psychology of Stress and Coping Behavior: Stability and Variability of Relationships, Personalities, Groups in an Era of Uncertainty" (Kostroma, 2022, September, 22–24), pp. 326–330 (In Russian).

Othman A., Hamzah M., Hashim N. (2014) Conceptualizing the Islamic Personality Model. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 130, May, pp. 114–119.

Panova N.V. (2010) Occupational Strain and the Ways of Its Correction in the Personal and Professional Development of a Teacher. Vestnik of the M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University, no 2, pp. 113–120 (In Russian).

Paulhus D.L. (2002) Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement (eds H.I. Braun, D.N. Jackson, D.E. Wiley), New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 49–69.

Pološki Vokić N., Aleksić A. (2020) Are Active Teaching Methods Suitable for All Generation Y students?—Creativity as a Needed Ingredient and the Role of Learning Style. Education Sciences, vol. 10, no 4, Article no 87.

Prato Previde G. (1991) Italian Adaptors and Innovators: Is Cognitive Style Underlying Culture? Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 12, no 1, pp. l–10.

Prato Previde G., Massimini F. (1984) Adattatori-Innovatori: Una Teoria ed una Misura della Creativitá nelle Organizzazioni [Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and a Measure of Creativity in Organizations]. Ricerche di Psicologia, no 3, pp. 99–134.

Prato Previde G., Rotondi P. (1996) Leading and Managing Change through Adaptors and Innovators. Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 3, no 3, pp. 120–134.

Preston C.C., Colman A.M. (2000) Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences. Acta Psychologia, vol. 104, iss. 1, pp. 1–15.

Prokhorova M.V., Teregulova A.D. (2014) Diagnostics of Adaptiove-Innovative Cognitive Style. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, no 2, pp. 400–406 (In Russian).

Rodosky R. (2021) School Improvement Grant: Analysis of Kentucky Cohort I Schools (PhD Thesis). Louisville: University of Louisville.

Rogers C.R. (1959) Toward a Theory of Creativity. Creativity and Its Cultivation (ed. H.H. Anderson), New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, pp. 69–82.

Rubashkin D. (2014) A Collective Model of Advanced Teacher Training: An International Experience. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, no 1, pp. 110–133 (In Russian).

Savchenko T.N., Faustova A.G. (2016) Adaptation of M. Kernis – A. Paradise "The Contingent Self-Esteem Scale". Eksperimental'naâ psihologiya / Experimental Psychology, vol. 9, no 4, pp. 79–89 (In Russian).

Sailer M., Murböck J., Fischer F. (2021) Digital Learning in Schools: What Does It Take beyond Digital Technology? Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 103, July, Article no 103346.

Salgado J. (2005) Personality and Social Desirability in Organizational Settings: Practical Implications for Work and Organizational Psychology. Papeles Del Psicólogo, vol. 26, pp. 115–127.

Scott R., Robinson B. (1996) Managing Technological Change in Education—What Lessons Can We All Learn? Computers & Education, vol. 26, no 1, pp. 131–134.

Shalashova M.M., Shevchenko N.I. (2016) The Corporate Model of Advanced Training: Preparing School Teams of Teachers for the Implementation of the FSES of General Education. Bulletin of Moscow Region State University, Series: Pedagogics, no 2, pp. 190–199 (In Russian).

Skinner N.F., Hutchinson L., Lukenda A., Drake G., Boucher J. (2003) National Personality Characteristics: 11. Adaption-Innovation in Canadian, American, and British Samples. Psychologzcal Reports, vol. 92, no 2, pp. 1–22.

Stum J. (2009) Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory: Managing Cognitive Styles in Times of Diversity and Change. Emerging Leadership Journeys, vol. 2, no 1, pp. 66–78.

Subotic M., Maric M., Mitrovic S., Mesko M. (2018) Differences between Adaptors and Innovators in the Context of Entrepreneurial Potential Dimensions. Kybernetes, vol. 47, no 7, pp. 1363–1377.

Tobing G., Angelina V.E., Franceline D., Anwar M.Y., Suwartono C., Halim M. (2020) Construct Validity of the Indonesian Version of Kirton`s Adaptaion-Innovation Inventory. Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat, vol. 1, no 2, pp. 303–316.

Tullett A.D., Kirton M.J. (1995) Further Evidence for the Independence of Adaptive-Innovative (A-I) Cognitive Style from National Culture. Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 393–396. https://doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00077-j

Wakita T., Ueshima N., Noguchi H. (2012) Psychological Distance between Categories in the Likert Scale: Comparing Different Numbers of Options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 72, no 4, pp. 533–546.

Weber M. (1970) Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wilcox K.C., Lawson H.A. (2018) Teachers’ Agency, Efficacy, Engagement, and Emotional Resilience during Policy Innovation Implementation. Journal of Educational Change, vol. 19, no 2, pp. 181–204.

Xu Y., Tuttle B.M. (2012) Adaption-Innovation at Work: A New Measure of Problem-Solving Styles. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, vol. 10, no 1, pp. 17–34.

Zeer Ye.F., Korneeva N.A. (2006) Social Hypocrisy as a Professionally Conditioned Deformation of the Teacher. The Education and Science Journal, no 4, pp. 81–90.

Zhang L. (2006) Does Student–Teacher Thinking Style Match/Mismatch Matter in Students’ Achievement? Educational Psychology, vol. 26, no 3, pp. 395–409.

How to Cite
AndreevaAnastasia A., SternikOlga S., and KhavensonTatiana E. 2024. “How to Measure Adaptive and Innovative Cognitive Styles: Adaptation of the M. Kirton Questionnaire for Education”. Voprosy Obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, no. 2 (July).
Research Articles