Celebrating a common finding: Riding’s CSA test is unreliable

This paper is a reply to Redmond and colleagues’ brief report that argues we (Peterson et al., 2003a) were not the first to establish the unreliability of the computerised cognitive styles analysis (CSA) test because we used a copy of the test rather than the original. We refute this suggestion and argue that we have already defended our approach to testing the CSA’s reliability (Peterson et al., 2003b) and that our method is entirely appropriate and transparent. Rather than argue over who was the first to test the CSA’s reliability, we believe we should celebrate the fact that we both found the same result, regardless of the method used.