Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine if a predominant representational system, as hypothesized by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, could be identified through written, verbal, and eye scanning patterns as the instruments of measurement. A second purpose was to determine if the results obtained through the three measures were consistent. Thirty-three undergraduate students from educational psychology classes at Baylor University were voluntary participants in this experimental study. All participants were right-handed. One hundred and fifty students took the multiple choice screening test. The thirty-three who were selected as participants for the study had responded predominantly in one or two of the three representational systems: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. Each participant was assigned to a representational system category which corresponded to his dominance as determined by the multiple choice instrument. Each of the participating students was also asked to attend a videotaped interview in which he was to respond verbally, from memory, to seven cards from the Thematic Apperception Test. The responses were transcribed from the videotape. The transcript of the verbal interview and the videotape of the eye movements exhibited by each student during the interview were classified as to representational system by three trained raters. An analysis of the data was accomplished by means of a factor analysis and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The procedure involved the comparison of mean scores in each of the statistical procedures. Differences in the means were considered to be significant if the probability was less than the .05 level, using the appropriate degrees of freedom. The major findings included the following: (1) Consistency was found within the visual representational group on both the written and eye scanning measures; (2) Consistency was found within the auditory group on the written and eye scanning measures; (3) A negative correlation was found between the visual and auditory groups within the written measure, within the eye scanning measure, and when the scores obtained by the two representational groups were compared on the written and eye scanning measures; (4) There were no significant pattern scores within the kinesthetic groups on any of the three measures; (5) No significant relationships were found between the auditory and kinesthetic groups on any of the measures; (6) Two significant relationships were highlighted between the visual group and the kinesthetic group. There was a negative relationship between the two groups on the written measure and a highly significant negative relationship on the verbal instrument; (7) The results obtained by the representational groups on the verbal instrument did not appear to have any relationship to those obtained from the other two instruments of measure. Several conclusions were drawn from the findings in this study. (1) The generalization that each person has a dominant representational system that can be identified by the predicates used in the speech of the individual does not appear to be substantiated in this study. No valid generalizations can be drawn until instruments have been standardized and determined reliable and valid measures of representational systems. (2) There was consistency between the free associated multiple choice stem selected by an individual and the eye scanning patterns he exhibited while he verbalized a story from the memory of a picture. (3) There was no consistency found between the multiple choice stem selected and the verbal responses elicited from the memory of a picture.