How Not to Evaluate a Psychological Measure: Rebuttal to Criticism of the Defining Issues Test of Moral Judgment Development by Curzer and Colleagues

Autor/inn/en	Thoma, Stephen J.; Bebeau, Muriel J.; Narvaez, Darcia
Titel	How Not to Evaluate a Psychological Measure: Rebuttal to Criticism of the Defining Issues Test of Moral Judgment Development by Curzer and Colleagues
Quelle	In: Theory and Research in Education, 14 (2016) 2, S.241-249 (9 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1477-8785
DOI	10.1177/1477878516635365
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Measures (Individuals); Moral Development; Moral Values; Evaluation Criteria; Models; Theories; Defining Issues Test + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Messdaten; Moralische Entwicklung; Moral value; Ethischer Wert; Analogiemodell; Theory; Theorie
Abstract	In a 2014 paper in "Theory and Research in Education," Howard Curzer and colleagues critique the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development according to eight criteria that are described as difficulties any measure of educational outcomes must address. This article highlights how Curzer et al. do not consult existing empirical evidence, misunderstand the model and method associated with the Defining Issues Test, and thereby reach conclusions that are unwarranted, incomplete, and ultimately indefensible. To address these shortcomings, we present an overview of the Defining Issues Test and note relevant criteria for evaluating a measure of moral judgment development. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01