A Measure for Assessing Academic Virtues and Strengths in the University Setting: Construction and Initial Examination of Structure and Correlates.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1177/00332941251317676
Zane Asher Green, Gunasegaran Karuppannan
{"title":"A Measure for Assessing Academic Virtues and Strengths in the University Setting: Construction and Initial Examination of Structure and Correlates.","authors":"Zane Asher Green, Gunasegaran Karuppannan","doi":"10.1177/00332941251317676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research demonstrates the construction and preliminary examination of the structure of a domain-specific measure, namely the <i>Character Strengths Scale for University Students</i> (CSSUS). Reflecting the use of the 24 Values in Action (VIA) strengths in the study domain, the CSSUS likely adds greater specificity to the findings pertinent for devising and implementing meaningful strategies for furthering academic development, student learning, and well-being in higher education. Derived from best practices, the item generation process of the CSSUS was based on four steps: (1) identification of the domain, (2) item generation, (3) content validity, and (4) field pre-testing of the items of the CSSUS. The initial examination of the factors of the CSSUS was based on a sample of 540 undergraduate and graduate students studying in Lahore, Pakistan. Results provided evidence of a four-factor structure of the CSSUS. Furthermore, the CSSUS and its subscales were positively related to academic achievement and the measures of satisfaction with life, positivity, and student self-efficacy. In addition, the CSSUS and its subscales were negatively related to the measure of academic burnout. The correlations provided evidence of the concurrent criterion-related validity of the scale. Moreover, female students reported higher levels of love and spirituality, whereas male students higher levels of leadership, creativity, and bravery. Also, there was no significant difference in the use of academic virtues with regard to gender, level of education (undergraduate and graduate), study discipline (agricultural sciences, humanities, health sciences, and engineering technology), type of university (public and private), and level of academic performance (low, medium, and high). The theoretical contribution and practice implications of the results are discussed. Limitations of the study and prospects for future research are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"332941251317676"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251317676","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research demonstrates the construction and preliminary examination of the structure of a domain-specific measure, namely the Character Strengths Scale for University Students (CSSUS). Reflecting the use of the 24 Values in Action (VIA) strengths in the study domain, the CSSUS likely adds greater specificity to the findings pertinent for devising and implementing meaningful strategies for furthering academic development, student learning, and well-being in higher education. Derived from best practices, the item generation process of the CSSUS was based on four steps: (1) identification of the domain, (2) item generation, (3) content validity, and (4) field pre-testing of the items of the CSSUS. The initial examination of the factors of the CSSUS was based on a sample of 540 undergraduate and graduate students studying in Lahore, Pakistan. Results provided evidence of a four-factor structure of the CSSUS. Furthermore, the CSSUS and its subscales were positively related to academic achievement and the measures of satisfaction with life, positivity, and student self-efficacy. In addition, the CSSUS and its subscales were negatively related to the measure of academic burnout. The correlations provided evidence of the concurrent criterion-related validity of the scale. Moreover, female students reported higher levels of love and spirituality, whereas male students higher levels of leadership, creativity, and bravery. Also, there was no significant difference in the use of academic virtues with regard to gender, level of education (undergraduate and graduate), study discipline (agricultural sciences, humanities, health sciences, and engineering technology), type of university (public and private), and level of academic performance (low, medium, and high). The theoretical contribution and practice implications of the results are discussed. Limitations of the study and prospects for future research are also discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
期刊最新文献
A Measure for Assessing Academic Virtues and Strengths in the University Setting: Construction and Initial Examination of Structure and Correlates. How and Why Does Leader Anger Expression Influence Employees' Deviant Innovation? Ability-Based Mianzi Stress and Workplace Anxiety Explanations of the Curvilinear Moderated Relations. Hugging for the Good of Humanity. People Joining the Free Hugs Campaign at Fandom Conventions Have Lighter, less Dark, and More Prosocial Personalities. Understanding the Relationship Between Empathy, Theory of Mind (ToM), and Parenting Styles Among Children With Disruptive Behaviour. Examining the Effect of Threatened Masculinity on Gun Violence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1