Structural Validity Evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale Across 15 Languages

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) recently completed a large-scale moral psychology study using translated versions of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS). However, the translated versions have no validity evidence. Objective: The study investigated the structural validity evidence of the OUS across 15 translated versions and produced version-specific validity reports. Methods: We analyzed OUS data from the PSA, which was collected internationally on a centralized online questionnaire . We also collected qualitative feedback from experts for each translated version. Results: For each version, we produced version-specific psychometric reports which include the following: (1) descriptive item and demographics analyses, (2) factor structure evidence using confirmatory factor analyses, (3) measurement invariance testing across languages using multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses and alignment optimization, and (4) reliability analyses using coefficients α and ω.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

Li‐tze Hu, Peter M. Bentler (1999)

0 comments Cited 10790 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The weirdest people in the world?

Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, Ara Norenzayan (2010)

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.

0 comments Cited 1485 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Identifying careless responses in survey data.

Adam Meade, S Bartholomew Craig (2012)

When data are collected via anonymous Internet surveys, particularly under conditions of obligatory participation (such as with student samples), data quality can be a concern. However, little guidance exists in the published literature regarding techniques for detecting careless responses. Previously several potential approaches have been suggested for identifying careless respondents via indices computed from the data, yet almost no prior work has examined the relationships among these indicators or the types of data patterns identified by each. In 2 studies, we examined several methods for identifying careless responses, including (a) special items designed to detect careless response, (b) response consistency indices formed from responses to typical survey items, (c) multivariate outlier analysis, (d) response time, and (e) self-reported diligence. Results indicated that there are two distinct patterns of careless response (random and nonrandom) and that different indices are needed to identify these different response patterns. We also found that approximately 10%-12% of undergraduates completing a lengthy survey for course credit were identified as careless responders. In Study 2, we simulated data with known random response patterns to determine the efficacy of several indicators of careless response. We found that the nature of the data strongly influenced the efficacy of the indices to identify careless responses. Recommendations include using identified rather than anonymous responses, incorporating instructed response items before data collection, as well as computing consistency indices and multivariate outlier analysis to ensure high-quality data.