Context and the Measurement of Moral Judgement

Abstract

This study explored the role of context in moral judgement measurement by addressing a recent contention that moral dilemmas are not essential for the successful assessment of moral judgement. We evaluated a new instrument, the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF), that uses contextually open-ended stimuli instead of moral dilemmas. SRM-SF data were collected from 509 male and female subjects, 8 to 81 years of age, including 94 delinquent males. The SRM-SF evidenced acceptable levels of reliability (inter-rater, test-retest, internal consistency) and validity (criterion-related and construct-related). For example, the SRM-SF demonstrated acceptable concurrent validity with the Moral Judgement Interview and discriminated delinquents as developmentally delayed in moral judgement. The SRM-SF was found to be procedurally efficient in terms of group administrability, completion time, self-training for scoring, and scoring. The factor structure of moral judgement as elicited by the SRM-SF was found to be unidimensional. Also, females were found to be more advanced in moral judgement than males in early adolescence, but the difference disappeared in late adolescence and adulthood.

The Moral Judgment of Juvenile Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis

“…Some argue that controlling for covariates such as age and intelligence may not be a good idea, as it obscures true group differences. The fact that moral judgment correlates with age, intellectual ability, and educational level supports the construct validity of moral judgment (Basinger, Gibbs, & Fuller, 1995). Studying moral judgment with these variables covaried out is like studying basketball ability with height covaried out (see Miller & Chapman, 2001).…”

Developing an understanding of the literature relating to the moral development of people with intellectual disabilities

“…In contrast, a difference between such groups has been more often reported when production instruments are used (Basinger, Gibbs, & Fuller, 1995;Gavaghan et al, 1983;Gibbs, Widaman, & Colby, 1982;Gregg, Gibbs, & Basinger, 1994;Palmer & Hollin, 1998;Palmer & Hollin, 2000). There is scope in considering whether or not The Sociomoral Reflection Measure -Short Form (Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992), which is a modern production instrument of moral reasoning, can be used with people who have IDs, as this measure has been successfully used with young children (Gibbs et al, 2007) and can be administered as an interview, negating the need for reading and writing.…”

Parenting quality: Confirmation of a higher-order latent construct with mothers of Head Start children

“…The resulting Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score (SRMS) ranges from 100 (Stage 1) to 400 (Stage 4). Test-retest reliability and internal consistency are acceptable (Basinger, Gibbs & Fuller, 1995;Gibbs et al, 1992). Construct validity has been demonstrated by a high correlation with Kohlberg's Moral Judgment Inventory (e.g., Basinger et al, 1995) and criterion validity by its discrimination of delinquent from non-delinquent samples (Gregg, Gibbs, & Basinger, 1994).…”

“…Test-retest reliability and internal consistency are acceptable (Basinger, Gibbs & Fuller, 1995;Gibbs et al, 1992). Construct validity has been demonstrated by a high correlation with Kohlberg's Moral Judgment Inventory (e.g., Basinger et al, 1995) and criterion validity by its discrimination of delinquent from non-delinquent samples (Gregg, Gibbs, & Basinger, 1994). In samples of university students and community-dwelling adults, there are no gender differences in SRMS (Garmon, Basinger, Gregg, & Gibbs, 1996), supporting the appropriateness of the instrument for the current sample of adult females.…”