The purpose of this study was to obtain additional data regarding the reliability and validity of a previously developed Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis Scale (Seegmiller & Epperson, 1987). The stability of Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis scores was investigated by obtaining two 5-minute tape-recorded verbal samples from undergraduate student volunteers on separate occasions, approximately five weeks apart. Verbal samples were transcribed and analyzed to yield Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis scores. The resulting test-retest reliability coefficient was relatively low, yet statistically significant.;Three different methods were used to evaluate the validity of Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis scores. First, subjects' verbal content analysis scores were correlated with the scores they obtained on the Thinking/Feeling Scale of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and a significant correlation was obtained. Second, subjects' content analysis scores were correlated with the scores they obtained on the Thinking and Feeling Scales of the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. The relationship between content analysis scores and SLIP thinking/feeling preference scores was not statistically significant. However, a significant relationship was observed between subjects' use of feeling verbs and their thinking/feeling preferences as assessed by the SLIP.;Finally, the relationship between Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis scores and counseling style preferences was investigated. It was hypothesized that thinkers would express a preference for a cognitive, problem-solving approach to counseling, whereas feelers would be more attracted to counseling that focused on feelings and emotions. To test this hypothesis, subjects viewed and evaluated two counseling style videotapes. The predicted relationship between content analysis thinking/feeling preferences and counseling style preferences was not observed.;Considered together, the results of this study did not provide strong evidence either for, or against the reliability and validity of the Thinking/Feeling Content Analysis Scale. The equivocal nature of these results was discussed, and possible directions for future research were suggested.