How not to evaluate a psychological measure: Rebuttal to criticism of the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development by Curzer and colleagues

Stephen J. Thoma, Muriel J. Bebeau, Darcia Narvaez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)241-249
Number of pages9
JournalTheory and Research in Education
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, © The Author(s) 2016.

Keywords

  • Moral judgment development
  • neo-Kohlbergian model
  • the Defining Issues Test

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How not to evaluate a psychological measure: Rebuttal to criticism of the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development by Curzer and colleagues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this