Initially, three CFAs with thirteen, five and three factors were performed as a factorial structure, following the international theoretical model of the scale (Sternberg et al., 2007) that groups the items into 13 styles, five dimensions and three types. Table 1 below shows the fit indices of the three factor structures initially tested.

As can be seen in Table 1, the best fit indices were for the 13-factor structure. In contrast, the three-factor structure presented unsatisfactory fit indices, suggesting that the theoretical structure of the instrument could not be observed in the Brazilian reality. Also, as it´s observed less number of factors produce lower fit indices traducing autonomy in assessed dimensions. Thus, the next analyses focused on identifying the best TSI-R2 structure for the Brazilian context.

As there were factors to be tested in terms of the best fit, a Parallel Analysis was chosen. Thus, nine factors were obtained as the best factor structure for the instrument. Then, AFE was performed from three to 13 factors. In order to consider the structure as acceptable, the following criteria were used: (a) to present acceptable fit indices, and (b) to have at least three items with factor load magnitudes above 0.30 in each factor.

Following these criteria, structures with three (χ²/df = 4.80; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.05; CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.81) and four factors (χ²/df = 3.98; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.04; CFI = 0.87; TLI = 0.85) presented unsatisfactory fit indices and were therefore disregarded as being the best factor structure for the instrument. Regarding the other established criterion, only the structures with nine, six and five factors presented at least three items with loads above 0.30. In order to maintain the factorial structure as close as possible to the 13 styles and more theoretically interpretable, the nine-factor structure was chosen.

In the nine-factor structure, 17 items were excluded because they had no factor load greater than 0.30 in no factor. The factorial structure with nine factors represented by 48 items presented good fit indices (χ²/df = 2.69; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR = 0.02; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.94). However, when analyzing the items they carried in each factor, two items (items 19 and 51) were excluded because they demonstrated theoretical inconsistency. Thus, the factor loadings of the remaining 46 items and the precision indices per factor will be presented in Table 2.

This factorial structure described in Table 2 demonstrated adequate adjustment indices on CFA (χ²/df = 2.75; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR = 0.02; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.94). The number of items per factor ranged from three to eight items. Precision indices calculated using the alpha coefficient and McDonald’s Omega, were mostly satisfactory, ranging from 0.65 to 0.80. Items 33, 35, 36, 41, 48 and 63 had cross factor loadings, i.e. greater than 0.30 in two factors.

Table 3 shows the organization of the items in its new proposition involving 9 factors adjusted to the Brazilian reality.

When considering the theoretical proposition by organizing 13 factors for the scale in the Brazilian reality, at first it can be said that in this sample the CFA does not indicate a fit according to the reviews performed. From this perspective, the theoretical proposition now presented by Zhang and Sternberg (2005) was not supported in this sample, as indicated by the adjustments in Table 1.

The first table also shows that the adjustments achieved with the AFC for a 5 factor model do not seem plausible either. In this model, proposed by Sternberg (1997), styles are understood because of 5 major organizations of the form of government (Function, Form, Level, Scope and Leaning). Function encompasses the legislative, executive and judiciary styles. Form includes the monarchical, hierarchical, oligarchic and anarchic styles. Level includes the global and local styles. In the case of the Scope internal and external styles would be involved and finally Leaning could be conservative or liberal (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005).

Likewise, when assuming in AFC the organization by Types I (legislative, judicial, liberal, global and hierarchical), II (executive, conservative, local and monarchic) and III (oligarchic, anarchic, internal and external) it was also not possible to evidence acceptable fit parameters. Thus, the Parallel Analysis indicated that the 9-factor model would be the best fit, in the sense that one can seek, on the one side, organizational theoretical explanations in what the authors Zhang and Sternberg (2005) propose in terms of the taxonomies used to define the intellectual styles and, on the other side, to observe that, in fact, this structure would not remain complete in the Brazilian reality. This condition is pertinent, considering that the pedagogical organization of educational institutions in Brazil differs from that of other countries, as well as due to the cultural and social access that these students from public schools have in their reality.

In this connection, the 9-factor model led to an organizational logic in which the name of the factors was respected when it mostly merged into a given factor. In addition to the factors that brought together items of different definitions, we sought to study the definitions of the items and propose a more reliable nomenclature for this representation. It should be noted that items 33, 35, 36, 41, 48 and 63 had cross loads in more than 2 factors, which does not necessarily reveal a problem. The organizations obtained in each of the 9 factors will be discussed further on.

Therefore, Factor 1 encompassed the legislative (3 items), internal (2 items), hierarchical (2 items) and conservative (1 item) styles; so, when reviewing the logic of the formulation of the items, it was conventionally called “Self-centered Style” Factor. It is possible to observe therein decision styles that imply an assessment of self/potentiality, dealing with subjects who first assess their potential before taking decisions.

Factor 2 has clustered executive (3 items) and conservative (5 items) styles. This factor should be called “Executive/Conservative Style” Factor. But still, when studying the structuring of the items, it may be noted that there is a predominance of the conservative style, because the executive items are tangent to the establishment of fixed rules in their operation and this, in a way, is also a conservative behavior. However, in order not to change what had already been proposed in theory, we sought to maintain in the nomenclature the working profile of both styles.

In Factor 3 the external (3 items) and judicial (3 items) style items emerged. The analysis of the items and their formulation led to the indication of a Factor called “Opening Style” that would correspond to the willingness towards new ideas and experiences upon decision making. Factor 4 aggregated the external (3 items) and internal (2 items) style items. This organization can be understood as external style only, because the internal styles that clustered in this factor had negative charges, denoting an understanding contrary to its construction. In this analysis it can be assumed that both the item “I like to work alone on a task or problem” (factorial load = -0.69) and the item “I prefer situations where I can come up with my own ideas, without depending on other people” (factorial load = -0.38) can be a negative pole of the same factor, in this case, the external style. That is why it is conventional to call it “External Style” Factor.

Factors 5 and 6 neatly aggregated items of the same dimension. In Factor 5 it can be observed that the 5 Oligarchic style items were aggregated and in Factor 6, 3 Hierarchical factor items appear clustered. Therefore, these Factors can be recognized as “Oligarchic Style” Factor and “Hierarchical Style” Factor, respectively.

In Factor 7 the anarchic (2 items), liberal (5 items) and global (1 item) styles were identified. In the analysis of the items one can notice an organizational trend in liberal ideas in the mode of organization as well as in actions aimed at non-centralization. For this reason, the Factor was considered as “Liberal/Decentralizing” Styles. In Factor 8, the convergence of monarchic (4 items) and anarchic (1 item) styles was observed. When evaluating the wording of the anarchic item ‘I tend to face several problems at the same time because they are often equally urgent’ (factorial load = -0.36) it can be noted that according to its load it can be an opposite pole. of the same factor, in this case, the monarchic style. So this was called the “Monarchic Style” Factor.

Finally, in Factor 9 there were the local (3 items) and global (1 item) styles. Again, looking at the overall style items that grouped into this factor (“I like to work on activities that deal with general issues rather than small details”), it can be noted that its factorial load was negative (-0.50). Similarly, it is hypothesized that this item may be representing an opposite pole of the same factor, in this case, the local factors. In this case, the factor was then defined as “Local Style” Factor.

The proposition of differentiation in the nomenclatures of some of the factors was because they grouped items representing different styles. For this reason, we essentially focused on the analysis of the organization of the items for their original theoretical formulation, to preserve as much as possible most of the model proposed in the Theory of Mental Self-Government (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005).

The McDonald’s Omega and Cronbach’s alpha values of the factors, although acceptable (Maroco & Garcia- Marques, 2006), in some cases they can still be considered low (< 0.70), which could indicate that the results obtained in the present study should be considered with caution in connection with the Brazilian reality; they even indicate the need for further studies in order to make the factors purer and, therefore, closer to the organization of the Theory of Mental Self-Government. Likewise, the relevance of investigating the instrument in samples of Brazilian university students is advisable, assuming that at this level of schooling there may be a better understanding and discrimination of the items in their complexity.

Given such considerations, it can be concluded that the model of the Theory of Mental Self-Government applies to the Brazilian reality, but not in its original formulation, as in other countries like Spain and Portugal (Bernardo et al., 2009; Miranda, 1994), perhaps because different sociocultural reality compared to that in which the instrument was developed. Therefore, since the reality of formal education presents many challenges to be overcome, including the quality of youth education, studies on Intellectual Styles in the Brazilian reality need to be further developed so that the mapping of the thinking styles of our students can give us valuable clues that can drive a more customized intervention when teaching students. For this reason, the contribution of theory and the search for evidence of the internal structure of the instrument is beneficial for the psychoeducational area. Allied to this, it is suggested as a future agenda that the relationship between intellectual styles and constructs such as learning strategies and motivation to learn be investigated and, also, that data such as school repetition and different teaching modalities be better explored.