Dataset Information

How relevant for you is to be a moral person? Polish validation of the Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale (SMIS) was developed by Aquino and Reeds with the purpose of measuring how people evaluate their private (Internalization subscale) and public (Symbolization subscale) moral identity. SMIS has become commonly and broadly used in many studies. The aim of this paper is to validate the Polish version of SMIS by analyzing its structure and relation to similar measures (such as The Moral Self-Concept Scale developed by Stake and The Moral Self-Image Scale created by Jordan, Leliveld and Tenbrunsel), declared past prosocial behaviors and readiness to donate money.

Methods

The translation-back-translation procedure was used to maintain semantic, idiomatic, and conceptual equivalence of the original scale. Throughout four separate studies the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the scale were assessed: Study 1 (N = 529) was carried out to derive the factor structure using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and cross-validate it; Study 2 (N = 602) and Study 3 (N = 899) were performed to confirm and replicate the structure with the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); gender-balanced Study 4 (N = 862) was conducted to assess measurement invariance over gender using multigroup CFA, and to normalize the scale. Validity of the scale was assessed based on each study.

Results

A stable two-factor structure using 10 items was replicated in four different samples. The results showed that reliability (α) was between 0.71 and 0.81 for Internalization, and 0.76 and 0.81 for Symbolization. Validity was confirmed in terms of the expected pattern of correlations with morality measures and factorial structure. Metric invariance across gender was confirmed with possible exception of factor loadings on two items regarding communication of values. Polish normalization for men and women was constructed.

Conclusions

Polish validation of SMIS proved to be a structurally consistent and valid measure.

SUBMITTER: Paruzel-Czachura M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Conway and Gawronski proposed a scale that independently measures utilitarian and deontological inclinations underlying moral judgments, based on an individual's endorsement of acceptable or unacceptable responses to 10 congruent and 10 incongruent moral dilemmas. This study aimed to develop and standardize the Korean version of this scale and examine the psychometric characteristics of various indexes extracted from it. The English version was translated and back-translated by two independent bilinguals. Inconsistencies between the backward translated version and the original version were resolved by consultation with an independent psychologist. Using an online survey, Korean adults aged 18 years or older were asked to read 20 dilemmas in the Korean version and indicate whether the action undertaken in each dilemma was acceptable, the probability that they would undertake the action themselves, and their level of tension and happiness. A total of 469 adults participated. Participants additionally answered questions that assessed utilitarianism and their level of antisocial personality disorder. Analysis showed that it was appropriate to use 20 dilemmas (10 incongruent and 10 congruent) in Korean adults but psychometric characteristics were different from those of the original English version. The correlation of probability that utilitarianism would drive responses (KU) and the probability that deontology would drive the responses (KD) was -.23 (p < .001). KU showed a significant correlation with utilitarianism (.18, p < .001) and a near-zero correlation with antisocial personality disorder. KD showed a correlation of -.27 (p < .001) with utilitarianism and a correlation of -.13 (p < .01) with antisocial personality disorder. A previous study that proposed that utilitarian and deontological inclinations are independent in moral judgment found a near-zero correlation between U and D, which was different from the result of the present study. Additionally, the limitations and implications of this study are discussed.

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted three studies to validate the Polish version of the BRS. Our objectives are as follows: first, to explore the dimensional structure of the scale and to determine the internal consistency (study 1: n = 1022); second, to determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS (study 2: n = 242); and third, to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect high-risk population (study 3: n = 602).MethodsTo explore the dimensional structure of the scale, we tested a two-factor model with one factor for positively worded items and one factor for negatively worded items. To determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS, we analysed correlations among BRS and resilience, positive mental health, and with positive and negative religious coping. We used Student's t-test to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect a high-risk population.ResultsBased on the CFA, a bivariate model was confirmed for items positively and negatively formulated with a higher order factor, which indicates the homogeneity of the scale, similar to the analyses carried out for their language versions confirming this type of homogeneity of the scale. The internal compatibility assessment based on Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega is good (0.88). Our analyses intended to test convergent and divergent validity, and showed that the BRS results are significantly related to a questionnaire measuring similar constructions. Our validation studies also provided important diagnoses regarding BRS "sensitivity", indicating that groups with higher stress levels achieved lower BRS resilience results.ConclusionThe results of our research indicate that the Polish version of the BRS should be considered to be a reliable and valid research tool. The Polish version of BRS is a reliable and accurate way of measuring resilience as the ability to bounce back from adversity and overcome various challenges or stressors. This scale may be used for both research and intervention purposes.