道德基础问卷和道德基础神圣性量表:评价荷兰语译文的析因结构。

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychologica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-07-24 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pb.1188
Ann De Buck, Lieven J R Pauwels
{"title":"道德基础问卷和道德基础神圣性量表:评价荷兰语译文的析因结构。","authors":"Ann De Buck,&nbsp;Lieven J R Pauwels","doi":"10.5334/pb.1188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale (MFSS) have been proposed to advance conceptualizations of morality. This study assesses the factor structure of the Dutch translations of the short version of the MFQ (20 items) and the full MFSS. The five-factor model posited by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) is compared against alternative models of morality. Correlational analyses are performed between the best-fitting models. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis of the optimal model is tested across gender. Data are taken from an online survey of a student sample (<i>N</i> = 1496). Results suggest that the Dutch translation of the MFQ20 does not converge on the proposed five-factor model. Conversely, MFSS subscales show good model fit, but intercorrelations among the five subscales are high. Weak invariance is retained for MFSS but not for MFQ20. Overall, the present study shows that the Dutch version of the MFSS scale performs better than the MFQ20 in terms of scale reliability, fit indices, and measurement invariance testing. More methodological inquiries on MFSS are welcomed, whereas the use of the MFQ20 should be discouraged. Instead, researchers on moral foundations are encouraged to empirically test the psychometric properties of the recently revised MFQ-2, developed by the authors of MFT as a more accurate instrument for the conceptualization of morality.</p>","PeriodicalId":46662,"journal":{"name":"Psychologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10376904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral Foundations Questionnaire and Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale: Assessing the Factorial Structure of the Dutch Translations.\",\"authors\":\"Ann De Buck,&nbsp;Lieven J R Pauwels\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pb.1188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale (MFSS) have been proposed to advance conceptualizations of morality. This study assesses the factor structure of the Dutch translations of the short version of the MFQ (20 items) and the full MFSS. The five-factor model posited by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) is compared against alternative models of morality. Correlational analyses are performed between the best-fitting models. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis of the optimal model is tested across gender. Data are taken from an online survey of a student sample (<i>N</i> = 1496). Results suggest that the Dutch translation of the MFQ20 does not converge on the proposed five-factor model. Conversely, MFSS subscales show good model fit, but intercorrelations among the five subscales are high. Weak invariance is retained for MFSS but not for MFQ20. Overall, the present study shows that the Dutch version of the MFSS scale performs better than the MFQ20 in terms of scale reliability, fit indices, and measurement invariance testing. More methodological inquiries on MFSS are welcomed, whereas the use of the MFQ20 should be discouraged. Instead, researchers on moral foundations are encouraged to empirically test the psychometric properties of the recently revised MFQ-2, developed by the authors of MFT as a more accurate instrument for the conceptualization of morality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10376904/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1188\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

道德基础问卷(MFQ)和道德基础圣洁量表(MFSS)是为了推进道德概念化而提出的。本研究评估了荷兰语翻译的MFQ(20个项目)和完整的MFSS的因素结构。将道德基础理论提出的五因素模型与其他道德模型进行了比较。在最佳拟合模型之间进行相关性分析。对最优模型的多组验证性因素分析进行了跨性别测试。数据来自对学生样本的在线调查(N=1496)。结果表明,MFQ20的荷兰语翻译并不收敛于所提出的五因素模型。相反,MFSS分量表显示出良好的模型拟合,但五个分量表之间的相关性很高。MFSS保留了弱不变性,但MFQ20没有。总体而言,本研究表明,荷兰版MFSS量表在量表可靠性、拟合指数和测量不变性测试方面优于MFQ20。欢迎对MFSS进行更多的方法学调查,而不鼓励使用MFQ20。相反,鼓励道德基础研究人员对最近修订的MFQ-2的心理测量特性进行实证测试,MFQ-2由MFT的作者开发,是道德概念化的一种更准确的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Moral Foundations Questionnaire and Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale: Assessing the Factorial Structure of the Dutch Translations.

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale (MFSS) have been proposed to advance conceptualizations of morality. This study assesses the factor structure of the Dutch translations of the short version of the MFQ (20 items) and the full MFSS. The five-factor model posited by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) is compared against alternative models of morality. Correlational analyses are performed between the best-fitting models. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis of the optimal model is tested across gender. Data are taken from an online survey of a student sample (N = 1496). Results suggest that the Dutch translation of the MFQ20 does not converge on the proposed five-factor model. Conversely, MFSS subscales show good model fit, but intercorrelations among the five subscales are high. Weak invariance is retained for MFSS but not for MFQ20. Overall, the present study shows that the Dutch version of the MFSS scale performs better than the MFQ20 in terms of scale reliability, fit indices, and measurement invariance testing. More methodological inquiries on MFSS are welcomed, whereas the use of the MFQ20 should be discouraged. Instead, researchers on moral foundations are encouraged to empirically test the psychometric properties of the recently revised MFQ-2, developed by the authors of MFT as a more accurate instrument for the conceptualization of morality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychologica Belgica
Psychologica Belgica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploration of the Links Between Psychosocial Well-being and Face Recognition Skills in a French-Speaking Sample. Relationship Between Neurodevelopmental Areas and Difficulties in Emotional-Behavioural Variables in Children With Typical Development Under 2 Years of Age: Sex Differences. Body Aware: Adolescents' and Young Adults' Lived Experiences of Body Awareness. The Influence of Changes in Daily Life Habits and Well-Being on Fatigue Level During COVID-19 Pandemic. A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.
×
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