A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems.
In social psychological research the stage metaphor has fallen into disfavor due to concerns about bias, reliability, and validity. To address some of these issues, I employ a multidimensional partial credit analysis comparing moral judgment interviews scored with the Standard Issue Scoring System (SISS) (Colby and Kohlberg, 1987b), evaluative reasoning interviews scored with the Good Life Scoring System (GLSS) (Armon, 1984b), and Good Education interviews scored with the Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System (HCSS) (Commons, Danaher, Miller, and Dawson, 2000). A total of 209 participants between the ages of 5 and 86 were interviewed. The multidimensional model reveals that even though the scoring systems rely upon different criteria and the data were collected using different methods and scored by different teams of raters, the SISS, GLSS, and HCSS all appear to measure the same latent variable. The HCSS exhibits more internal consistency than the SISS and GLSS, and solves some methodological problems introduced by the content dependency of the SISS and GLSS. These results and their implications are elaborated.
Dawson
Theo Linda
TL
Graduate School of Education, Tolman Hall, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670, USA. theod@uclink4.berkeley.edu
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009014:Morals; D010552:Personality Assessment / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010553:Personality Development; D011340:Problem Solving; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results