Character strengths have become a popular topic in personality research. A set of questionnaires has recently been developed as measures of character strengths: the VIA Inventory of Strengths-Revised, two 96-item short forms of that instrument, and two new measures called the Global Assessment of Character Strengths and Signature Strengths Survey. Collectively, these are referred to as the VIA Assessment Suite for Adults. Prior research has supported the reliability and validity of these measures. The current study extended those findings through a demographically stratified sample of 1,765 U.S. resident adults. Results indicated the scores were interchangeable across all three versions of the VIA-IS, irrespective of whether the items are all positively keyed or a mix of positive and negative items. In addition, the VIA-IS-R factor structure is also consistent with a previously identified three-factor model for the strengths. By freeing residual covariances, a model was developed for which adequate fit was replicable. This provided the foundation for demonstrating measurement invariance. The present study also explored differences in strengths across demographic categories and evaluated various approaches to identifying key (signature) strengths for the respondents. Recommendations on the use of the different instruments are provided.

No abstract

Having an agreed-upon definition of character education would be useful for both researchers and practitioners in the field. However, even experts in character education disagree on how they would define it. We attempted to achieve greater conceptual clarity on this issue through a prototype analysis in which the features perceived as most central to character education were identified. In Study 1 (N = 77), we asked character education experts to enumerate features of character education. Based on these lists, we identified 30 features. In Study 2 (N = 101), expertsassessed which features were central to character education through a categorization task. In Study 3 (N = 166), we assessed the extent of centrality using scalar items. We conclude by offering practical advice for the development of future character education studies and programs rooted in what is deemed central to such programs.

No abstract

Few studies have examined the practices of prescribing psychologists, and the extant literature suffers from small sample sizes due to the nature of the profession. The current study was based on data from 43 prescribing psychologists, the largest sample of prescribing psychologists examined to date. It was found that prescribing psychology is distinctive from both traditional psychological and psychiatric practice. Prescribing psychologists tend to work in multiple settings. Although respondents espoused a preference for combination therapy, monotherapy-whether medication or psychotherapy-remains the dominant option. Prescribing psychologists reported minimal interaction with pharmaceutical drug representatives. It is also prescribing psychologists' sense that nonprescribers in their community experience them in positive ways. Future studies should further address patient treatment themes within this practice, as well as looking into changes in interactions with pharmaceutical representatives. Public Significance StatementFive states are now awarding prescriptive authority to appropriately trained psychologists, which has the potential to change mental health practices in those states markedly. This study is the largest to date on the practices and activities of prescribing psychologists, and examines issues such as patient demographics, job duties, relations with nonprescribing psychologists, and interactions with pharmaceutical representatives.