Validating the behavioral Defining Issues Test across different genders, political, and religious affiliations

Hyemin Han
{"title":"Validating the behavioral Defining Issues Test across different genders, political, and religious affiliations","authors":"Hyemin Han","doi":"10.1017/exp.2023.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Defining Issues Test (DIT) has been widely used in psychological experiments to assess one’s developmental level of moral reasoning in terms of postconventional reasoning. However, there have been concerns regarding whether the tool is biased across people with different genders and political and religious views. To address the limitations, in the present study, I tested the validity of the brief version of the test, that is, the behavioral DIT, in terms of the measurement invariance and differential item functioning (DIF). I could not find any significant non-invariance at the test level or any item demonstrating practically significant DIF at the item level. The findings indicate that neither the test nor any of its items showed a significant bias toward any particular group. As a result, the collected validity evidence supports the use of test scores across different groups, enabling researchers who intend to examine participants’ moral reasoning development across heterogeneous groups to draw conclusions based on the scores.","PeriodicalId":12269,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Results","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Results","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2023.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The Defining Issues Test (DIT) has been widely used in psychological experiments to assess one’s developmental level of moral reasoning in terms of postconventional reasoning. However, there have been concerns regarding whether the tool is biased across people with different genders and political and religious views. To address the limitations, in the present study, I tested the validity of the brief version of the test, that is, the behavioral DIT, in terms of the measurement invariance and differential item functioning (DIF). I could not find any significant non-invariance at the test level or any item demonstrating practically significant DIF at the item level. The findings indicate that neither the test nor any of its items showed a significant bias toward any particular group. As a result, the collected validity evidence supports the use of test scores across different groups, enabling researchers who intend to examine participants’ moral reasoning development across heterogeneous groups to draw conclusions based on the scores.
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
验证跨性别、政治和宗教信仰的行为定义问题测试
定义问题测验(DIT)被广泛应用于心理实验中,以评估一个人在后习俗推理方面的道德推理发展水平。然而,有人担心该工具是否对不同性别、政治和宗教观点的人有偏见。为了解决这些局限性,在本研究中,我测试了简短版本的测试,即行为DIT,在测量不变性和差异项目功能(DIF)方面的有效性。我在测试层面上找不到任何显著的非不变性,也找不到任何项目在项目层面上表现出实际显著的DIF。研究结果表明,该测试及其任何项目都没有显示出对任何特定群体的明显偏见。因此,收集的有效性证据支持在不同群体中使用测试分数,使研究人员能够根据分数来检查不同群体中参与者的道德推理发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
THE COST OF PAEDIATRIC ABDOMINAL TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT IN INDIA: EVIDENCE FROM A TEACHING HOSPITAL On L-derivatives and biextensions of Calabi–Yau motives Handedness and test anxiety: An examination of mixed-handed and consistent-handed students Analysis of declining trends in sugarcane yield at Wonji-Shoa Sugar Estate, Central Ethiopia Raw driving data of passenger cars considering traffic conditions in Semnan city
×
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