is character development quantifiable? mark a. liston … · · 2017-04-26is character...

Is Character Development Quantifiable?

Creation and Validation of the Character Growth Index

Mark A. Liston and Marvin W. Berkowitz

University of Missouri-St. Louis

Authors Note

Mark A. Liston, College of Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis; Marvin W.

Berkowitz, College of Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Mark A. Liston is now at the Liston Group, Joplin, MO.

Data for this study was gathered for Mark A. Liston’s doctoral dissertation. Research for

this study was supported in part by the Center for Character and Citizenship, University of

Missouri-St. Louis.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark Liston. E-mail:

[email protected]

Commented [1]: Should I add the foundation that gave me scholarships while doing the PhD? The Center? Liston Group?

CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 2

Abstract

The field of character education is in need of a valid and reliable multi-dimensional

character development measure. Toward that end, this study has both 1) conceptualized the

multidimensional structure of character, and 2) created and validated a reliable measure of

character corresponding to that multidimensional structure. Relying on seminal models from

three character-oriented fields – Positive Psychology, Character Education, and Positive Youth

Development – a taxonomy of primary character strengths was generated. Items were then

developed and subjected to two field tests of young adolescents to create the Character Growth

Index (CGI) as a reliable, multidimensional character instrument. A validation study correlated

CGI with 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth Survey at .851. Exploratory factor analysis

produced 11 factors easily interpreted as the 11 character strengths being measured. A post-hoc

exploratory factor analysis of the 52 VIA items indicated a factorial structure almost identical to

that of the CGI. These results indicate CGI is a reliable, valid measure of multidimensional

character.

Commented [2]: I do love the way you write.


Is Character Development Quantifiable?

Creation and Validation of the Character Growth Index

(Berkowitz & Bustamante, 2013; Lerner et al., 2005; Park & Peterson, 2006a). Recent

popular and scholarly writings indicate an increasing emphasis on gratitude, grit/perseverance,

creativity, curiosity, and kindness, and other character strengths (Duckworth, Peterson,

Matthews, & Kelly, 2007; Tough, 2012). Fields of psychology, education, sociology, business

and economics, and politics have weighed in on the importance of virtue and character strengths

from a scientific perspective.

Assessing character development however has proven difficult. Core educational

disciplines (e.g. math, communication arts, science, etc.) have clearly defined what constitutes

their fields through a unified construct (Gierl, 1997; Mellon, 1975). Such a construct is based on

clear theory and conceptualization that explains its domain (Bailey, 1994). It enables these fields

to develop valid measures by which they can assess student learning (Carpenter, 1981; Mellon,

1975).

According to many scholars, character education is currently limited by the lack of a

similar construct (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; SCDRC, 2010). Some character educators and

curriculum developers, seeking a comprehensive list of character strengths to base instruction,

use one create by a popular writer or organization or create their own (Lickona, Schaps, &

Lewis, 2003). These at best have little expert opinion, criteria for inclusion, or metric validation

(Davidson, Lickona, & Khmelkov, 2010; Liston, 2007) and thus have no “…empirically derived

superordinate categories or domains” (Theokas et al., 2005, p.5).


While numerous character training programs are extant, assessing their outcomes and

effectiveness is problematic (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Person, Moiduddin, Hague-Angus,

& Malone, 2009), in large part due the absence of both a consensual conceptualization and a

psychometrically sound measure. In 2009, the US House Committee on Education defunded

character education (USHR, 2012) stating,

“The Partnerships in Character Education program has not received funding since FY

2009. The program has an extremely limited impact (italics added) … The [USDE]

conducted a review of more than 40 Character Education programs (Person, Moiduddin,

Hague-Angus, & Malone, 2009) … and found only two with positive results” (USDE,

2012b, footnote 17).

The Person et al. report focuses on the problems the Character Education programs

encountered in measuring their effects and outcomes. Logically the evaluation of a character

training program should include measuring participants’ character in its multiple aspects. Of the

36 evaluated programs in the Person et al. report (2009), only one used a multidimensional

character assessment. Presumably this is due to the lack of such a valid, reliable instrument. The

report’s recommendation was that Character Education needed 1) a conceptual basis including a

unified character taxonomy and 2) quantitative assessment tools to measure both character

strength and growth.

Measuring a multidimensional concept (character) by identifying its multidimensional

components (virtues or strengths) in order to construct a valid multidimensional test is both

necessary and challenging (Diener et al., 2010; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Lopez & Snyder,

2003). As Park and Peterson (2006b) said, “Character strengths are complex constructs that

Commented [3]: The quote suggests that the reason was no effects, no the inability to identify measures. Need to spin this differently. Perhaps say the decision to defund was due to very limited effects in existing research. THEN say that perhaps having a valid, reliable measure may be sensitive enough to reveal effects.

Commented [4]: Is this good?


require comprehensive measures” (p. 902).

At this time, multi-dimensional character growth cannot be quantified (Hanson, Dietsch,

& Zheng, 2012). This article first reviews the research fields that emphasize character, their

conceptualization of character, and character assessments. Second, a unified taxonomy is

created and a multidimensional character measure is developed and validated that hold potential

to assess character growth.

Conceptualizing character. Character theory has focused on defining character by its

components or strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Though Aristotle seemed to believe the

task of creating the definitive taxonomy of character strengths was impossible, many have

attempted to do so over the centuries (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). While other areas of

psychology have broad acceptance of a taxonomy (e.g., The Big Five personality construct; John

& Naumann, 2010; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), no such construct is widely accepted for

character.

Three fields that emphasize and study character have been prominent in the past 30 years:

Character Education (CE; Bulach, 1996; Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Josephson, 2011); Positive

Youth Development (PYD; Leffert et al., 1998; Scales & Leffert, 2004; Search Institute, 1997);

and Positive Psychology (PP; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Though researchers in each are

aware of the others, collaboration seems uncommon (Liston, 2014).

Character education (CE). CE has been shown in repeated studies to have positive

outcomes in student behavior and academic achievement and school culture (Tatman,

Edmonson, & Slate, 2009). As a field of research, certain efforts to conceptualize character are

notable (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006). The John Templeton Foundation has funded many scholarly

Commented [5]: Here you can begin by reflecting on the taxonomies that drove the measures you have just reviewed. Then say a common denominator taxonomy would help the field. Then describe how you did that.

Commented [6]: Done

Commented [7]: I still think you are better off just calling this Developmental Assets. Unless you want to mean a broader field including that. Then you need to cite more than the Search Institute. This is likely what got you in hot water with Rich originally.

Commented [8]: See edits and note below.


studies of 16 character strengths identified in their charter (JTF, 2013). JTF does not claim these

to be a definitive construct though it is largely congruent with PP’s 24 strengths.

In 1992, the Josephson Institute (JI) sponsored a conference “to formulate a nonpartisan,

non-sectarian framework for character development. The result was the Aspen Declaration,

which created a list of shared ethical values...” (Josephson, 2009). Thirty scholars and advocates

crafted by consensus six primary character traits “...that transcend cultural, religious, and

socioeconomic differences” (Josephson, 2011). JI launched Character Counts to promote these

“Six Pillars of Character.” The pillars serve as meta-traits that encompass 24 character strengths

(Josephson, 2011) in marked parallel to the VIA model (see below; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Lickona and Davidson developed CE’s most extensive and nuanced conceptualization

with three constructs. They state that these “represent a conceptual progression”: Ten Essential

Virtues (Lickona, 2004); Eight Strengths of Character that “operationalize” the virtues (Lickona

& Davidson, 2005); and 65 comprehensive strengths Character = Values In Action (Davidson &

Lickona, 2009).

Positive Youth Development (PYD). PYD was begun in the 1980’s by youth workers,

organizations, and researchers who combined sociological, educational, and psychological

concepts (Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Lerner et al., 2005; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2001;

Scales & Leffert, 2004). Their goals are 1) to promote concepts and programs that optimize

youth development and 2) to emphasize positive assets, opportunities, community resources, and

character (Damon, 2004; Theokas et al., 2005).

PYD scholars have contributed numerous studies regarding youth development

conceptualization and character (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Lerner & Callina, 2014). Benson et


al. (2006) discuss “Four Vocabularies of Positive Youth Development,” stating, “…each

[vocabulary’s] definition focuses on some combination of (and the interactions among) five core

constructs,” one of which includes “the child’s developmental strengths (attributes including

skills, competencies, values, and dispositions)” (p. 2). This core construct is termed “character”

by one of the four vocabularies (p.2). Another vocabulary, the Search Institute’s Developmental

Assets, places in this construct 20 “internal developmental assets” as “personal characteristics

and behaviors” (p.2) that could be considered either character strengths or indications of the

presence of strengths (Leffert et al., 1998; Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000; Search

Institute, 1997, n.p.).

Positive Psychology (PP). Arguably the best construct of character in the past 15 years

emerged from Positive Psychology (Linley et al., 2007; Toner, Haslam, Robinson, & Williams,

2012). PP has the most extensive theory of character with an explicit, detailed conceptualization

and system of classification. In Character Strengths and Virtues (2004) Peterson and Seligman

analyzed the best existing character concepts and lists of strengths gathered from antiquity and

recent psychology. They reviewed philosophers, religions, and various cultures world-wide to

gather universally-acknowledged virtues. Peterson and Seligman defined character strengths as

“the psychological ingredients – processes or mechanisms – that define the virtues” (p. 13).

With their team of scholars, they created 11 criteria by which they determined what qualified as

a character strength. Twenty-four such strengths were selected and grouped into six classic

virtues: courage, wisdom, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. Though they admit

the construct is nascent, it is the most thoroughly developed and broadly researched character

taxonomy available (Linley et al., 2007; Toner, Haslam, Robinson, & Williams, 2012).

[MAY NEED MORE ON PP CONCEPTUALIZATION]

Commented [9]: Here is where this confusion is most apparent. You define PYD widely and then reduce it to one (somewhat anomalous) model, 40 developmental assets.



Multidimensional character assessments. Valid measures of certain single character

strengths are available (Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004; Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Sackett, &

Wanek, 1996). Many were not developed from a central character construct and have no

established norms. Measuring one character strength in isolation from other strengths and apart

from a construct limits the measures’ practicality and validity (Lopez & Snyder, 2003; Park &

Peterson 2006b). Most character strengths have high degrees of correlation and their definitions

often overlap (McGrath, Rashid, Park, & Peterson, 2010). Simply combining existing measures

of singular strengths to comprehensively assess character is therefore not likely to produce a

valid and reliable instrument although it is possible (Theokas et al., 2005). The following is a

brief review of available character measures.

Character Development Survey. In reviewing the 32 scales from published research

listed in the Person et al. study, only one specifically measured character: The Character

Development Survey (CDS, Johns, 1997). The measure proved reliable in its initial use by its

author but had no validation, the “Gold Standard of test evaluation” (Haynes, Richard, &

Kubany, 1995, p. 239).

Character Traits. Dr. Clete Bulach developed one of only two measures on the

Character.org website (formerly Character Education Partnership) under their “Individual

Assessment” list that specifically says it is a measure of multidimensional character

(http://www.character.org/more-resources/assessment-tools/individual/). To develop this

instrument, Dr. Bulach asked 130 teachers what they would see or hear if one of the 16 character

traits were present. He then used the behaviors they identified to form the survey's items.

Called simply Character Traits, the scale “consists of 96 behaviors used to measure students’

perceptions of their peers’ behavior on 16 character dimensions” (Bulach, 1996, 2002). Rather than


assessing the student’s own character, items ask the student’s perceptions of peers’ behavior.

The instrument tested 462 students grades 3, 4, 7, and 10, achieved .96 reliability,

In an unpublished manuscript, Bulach (2000) reported his factor analysis revealed three

factors he entitled school community relations' behaviors, curriculum related behaviors, and

internal relations' behaviors. Bulach stated, “There is little data on the construct validity of this

instrument” (p.4).

Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behavior Scale. Leffert et al. (1998) used the

Search Institute’s 20 internal assets and 20 external assets to create the Profiles of Student Life:

Attitudes and Behavior Scale (PSL-AB; Leffert et al., 1998; Scales et al., 2000). This measure

fostered research and advancement in conceptualizing Positive Youth Development. PSL-AB is

broad, including concepts regarding community, family relations, academics, and activities and

thus could not be considered a character assessment.

Theokas et al. (2009) state that PSL-AB has metric challenges: “Limitations associated

with single-item asset measures and the limited reliability of some multi-item asset measures

included in the survey have prevented the organization of the asset items into empirically derived

superordinate categories or domains” (p.5).

VIA Measures. From the construct detailed in Character Strengths and Virtues, Peterson

and Park developed the Values In Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; 2003). The purpose of

VIA-IS is to help individuals identify their “signature character strengths” (Park & Peterson,

2009). VIA-IS and its adolescent version (VIA Youth Survey; Park, 2005) became the first

measure of multidimensional character based on a strong construct. Over a million people have

taken these two assessments online (Linley et al., 2007).

The VIA surveys have some metric shortcomings that have limited their validity. These

Commented [11]: I want to keep PYD as the field but, as with Character Education, use the conceptualization closest to character strengths for the list. Does this work?


include their length (224 and 198 items respectively), design as an ordinal (vs. numeric)

measure, reading level, content and discriminant validity, and prototypicality ratings (Liston,

2014; McGrath, 2015; Park & Peterson, 2006b). A specific concern regarding the latter is that

exploratory factor analysis of VIA-IS indicates that many items’ structural coefficients were

deficient, double-factored, or did not have their highest score in the intended factor (Brdr &

Kashdan, 2010; Linley, et al., 2007; Liston, 2014; Park & Peterson, 2006b).

Despite these limitations, the VIA measures arguably are the best available character

assessment tools. Their items and subscales can inform character research in many ways. First,

they are based on the best conceptualization in psychology and education (Snyder & Lopez,

2007). Second, they are the most comprehensive and widely-used items and subscales available

(Brdr & Kashdan, 2011; McGrath, Rashid, Park, & Peterson, 2010). Third, factor analysis is

possible with an ordinal measure and exploratory factor analysis of these measures indicated

factor strength through adequate to good coefficient alphas (Brdr & Kashdan, 2010; Linley et al.,

2007; McGrath, 2010; Park & Peterson, 2006a, 2007, 2009).

The VIA measures’ purpose is to reveal one’s greatest or “signature strengths” at the time

the test is taken. They have not yet been studied to determine their ability to measure character

development. In a personal conversation with co-creator of both VIA instruments Nansook Park

(July 26, 2011), she disclosed that VIA focused more on signature strengths that are consistent

throughout one’s lifetime than on character growth that develops with effort and time. She

specified that some items assess more trait-like or personality-based features of character

strengths and would probably not be likely to show development. VIA Education Director Dr.

Ryan Niemiec stated that the VIA Youth Survey is “not optimal for measuring character growth

due to: (a) Insensitivity to variations in character trait use; (b) A ‘ceiling effect’ when one scores

Commented [12]: I thought McGrath could only get 3 factors out of these? Shouldn’t that be discussed as a limitation? Also sets up your finding that it has a solid factor structure.

Commented [13]: It’s not a limitation as the purpose of most factor analysis is factor reduction.

Commented [14]: Need to say something about the difference between measuring character and measuring character development. May not be obvious to the reader.

Commented [15]: DON’T YOU THINK THAT IS COVERED IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION?


high in a trait initially; [and] (c) The VIA surveys’ … design for ordinal results, i.e., the rank-

ordering of strengths rather than measuring the level of each strength for later comparison to

measure growth” (personal correspondence, February 27, 2013).

Primary dimensions of character. This study reviewed the most widely accepted

models in order to generate an integrative taxonomy to determine the primary character

strengths. This was accomplished in two steps. First, expert opinion was considered from the

three fields of character and five lists were selected. PP was represented by Peterson and

Seligman’s (2004) 24 strengths. Search Institute’s 20 Internal Assets (Benson, 2007; Leffert et

al., 1998; Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000; Theokas et al., 2005) best represent PYD

strengths. CE strengths were described by three experts: Bulach (1996), Josephson (2009, 2011),

and Lickona (Davidson, Lickona, & Khmelkov, 2010; Lickona, 2004; Lickona & Davidson,

2005).

The second step was similar to Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) initial step to develop the

Positive Psychology construct (pp. 56,57). Strengths from each list were entered on a grid to

determine their commonality. PP’s 24 were the initial organizing list to which the other four

expert’s lists were compared to determine homogeneity. Twenty-nine strengths were listed and a

name was chosen for each strength that best represented the five experts’ definitions. A simple

point system based on the experts’ level of emphasis of each strength provided an assignment of

observed frequency.

Table 1: Grid of Character Strengths

Authorities >

Positive

Psychology

Character

Countsa

Lickona &

Davidsonb

Bulach's 16

Traits

Search Institute’s

20 Internal Assetsc Total

Primary Strengths:

Love/Care x x x x x 5


Responsibilit

y Prudence x x x x 5

Fairness x x Justice x Equality/justice* 4.5

Honesty x # Integrity x x 4.5

Self-control x # x x Restraint 4.5

Kindness x Knd/Gnrsty Knd/Mercy x Intrprsnl cmptnc * 4.5

Social

Intelgc. Social intelg Trustworthy Soc-emo skill Crtsy/polite Intrprsnl cmptnc * 4.5

Citizenship # x x x School Bond* 4

Open-minded x # Ethical thinker Toler/divers Equality/justice* 4

Perseverance Persistence # Hard work x Homework* 4

Teamwork # # x

Sportsmnsh

p Cultural comptnce* 3.5

Humility x

#Srving/Obd

c x x 3.5

Diligence # x x Achievement 3.5

Courage Bravery # Fortitude Intgrty*,Resistance* 3.5

Respect x x x Cultural comptnce* 3.5

Spirituality x Spirit’l, Purps. Purpose 3

Forgiveness x # ^^ x 3

Learning Love lrn’g Life learner Engage.*, Read* 3

Optimism Hope Pos. Attitude Positive Future 3

Wisdom x x Plan'g/ decsnmkg 3

Gratitude x # x 2.5

Leadership x #Initiative x 2.5

Peace #Patience ^^ Pers Pwr*, Cnfl Rs* 2

Curiosity x ^^ School Engage* 2

Confidence ^^ Self-esteem 1.5

Creativity x ^^ 1.5

Zest x ^^ 1.5

Wonder/Exce

l x 1

Humor x 1

Coding Explanation: Some cells contain similar words the expert used to represent that strength.

x means the expert’s strength name is similar or identical to the collective name (1 point). If the

cell is blank, the expert did not include the strength. a # means the strength is taught as an aspect of one of the Six Pillars (½ point).

b ^^ means the strength is on Lickona and Davidson's larger list of over 65 strengths (½ point). c * means the strength is an aspect of one of the 20 Assets (½ point).

If strengths are too similar, items created to measure each could factor together. The 29

strengths were evaluated for such synonymy. Additional expert opinions were considered (A.


Duckworth, personal communication, February 23, 2013; Lee & Ashton, 2006; T. Lickona,

personal communication, March 7, 2012; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). These processes

resulted in the following decisions:

● Thirteen strengths were retained as listed in the grid: Love, Honesty, Self-Control,

Kindness, Humility, Courage, Spirituality, Forgiveness, Wisdom, Gratitude, Peace,

Social Intelligence, and Creativity.

● Optimism, Zest, and Confidence are merged into one strength called Optimism due to

conceptual similarity (Liston, 2013; Rashid, 2011; Worthington & Scherer, 2004).

● Citizenship, Teamwork, and cooperative aspects of Fairness are merged into one strength

called Cooperation (Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Josephson, 2011; Park & Peterson,

2006b).

● Diligence is merged into Perseverance and Responsibility (Davidson & Lickona, 2005;

Duckworth et al., 2007; Josephson, 2011)

● Open-mindedness, Respect, and the justice aspects of Fairness are merged into one

strength called Respect (Davidson & Lickona, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

● Leadership, Love of Learning, and Curiosity were dropped due to expert opinion and

literature review indicating they had difficulty factoring with reliable items (Liston, 2011,

2013; Park & Peterson, 2006; 2007; 2009; Peterson and Park, 2009; Rashid, 2011;

Rosebush, 2012; Steen, Kachorek, & Peterson, 2003).

● Wonder/Excellence and Humor were removed because they were only listed by Positive

Psychology.


This procedure produced 18 strengths that were hypothesized to cover the primary

dimensions of character. Each was defined by integrating the experts’ concepts of each strength.

The strengths are: Cooperation, Courage, Creativity, Forgiveness, Gratitude, Honesty, Humility,

Kindness, Love, Optimism, Peace, Perseverance, Respect, Responsibility, Self-Control, Social

Intelligence, Spirituality, and Wisdom (These strengths will be capitalized to denote proper

names in this article). [GOOD OR BAD IDEA?]

Assessing multidimensional character. The second initial step to measure character

growth is to create an assessment that operationalizes and tests the conceptualization. Roth-

Herbst, Borbely, and Brooks-Gunn (2007) have concluded that “little work… has attempted to

create a reliable and valid scale to measure the many components implied by the term

‘character’” (p. 175). No developmental norms or trajectories for levels of character strength

have been established (Lopez & Snyder, 2003). In fact, the concept of character growth has not

been psychometrically established (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng, 2012; Lerner & Callina, 2014).

An essential consideration in creating this assessment was to enable character

development or growth to be measured. This requires care in establishing the definitions of the

strengths and the methods by which they are quantitatively assessed (Hanson, Dietsch, & Zheng,

2012; Leffert et al., 1998; Lerner & Callina, 2014). Peterson and Seligman’s (2004)

conceptualization of character strengths seems to include their development over time. Their

stance “…recognizes individual differences that are stable and general but also shaped by the

individual’s setting and thus capable of change” (p. 10). They insist that “positive traits need to

be placed in context…” (p. 11). They locate strengths “…within people and people within their

settings…” (p. 11). They define “trait-like” is “being tonic (constant) versus phasic (waxing and

waning depending on their 'use'). A tonic characteristic (e.g., kindness or humor) shows itself

Commented [16]: This needs to be reworked to reflect the difference between “trait-like” and “state-like”. This is a significant departure of


steadily in a variety of settings...” (p. 11). This definition of trait-like differs from McCrae and

Costa’s concept of traits as fixed and biologically set (McCrae et al., 2000).

This conceptualization of PP character strengths allows some degree of development. It

may be argued that it is akin to current personality trait theory that recognizes research showing

personality develops gradually over long periods of time (Roberts, Wood, & Smith, 2005). The

trait-like concept of character strengths does not adequately describe rapid change in

performance or moral character that may be observed (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman,

2007). This is especially true during childhood and adolescence, known as stages of rapid

development (Roberts, Wood, & Smith, 2005).

The trait-like concept also does not consider the effects of circumstance or situation that

affects character expression (Hamaker, Nesselroade, & Molenaar, 2007). Theoretically,

character development may be gradual or rapid, often influenced by one’s environment (Lerner

& Callina, 2014). What is required to conceptualize such progress is a theory containing both

qualities required for development: (a) a degree of stability required for a strength to be sustained

over time yet also (b) a degree of variability to allow progress, change, and growth in character

(Baumeister, 2012). Without stability, attempts to measure character traits would be like

measuring one’s mood or energy level, known in trait-state theory as states of being with high

variability. That is, mood might circumstantially rise and fall without a developmental

progression. Without variability, such as in McCrae and Costa’s concept of traits, no

development can be expressed (Baumeister, 2012; Linley et al., 2007; Macdonald, Miles, &

Munro, 2008).

In contrast, the concept of character development as state-like contains both stability and

variability.


Theoretically, character strengths as defined by Peterson and Seligman (2004) should

develop over time and that development could be measured. Due to its gradual nature, this may

make such assessment difficult.

If character development is more state-like than trait-like, A character measure is needed

that: (a) is based on expert opinion and the best available constructs to determine the primary

character strengths; (b) is multidimensional, assessing those strengths with metric validity; and

(c) uses items designed to indicate both stability and variability in order to assess development.

This study endeavored to create such a measure.

This study’s research question is: Can a valid, reliable measure of multi-dimensional

adolescent character be developed? Adolescents were chosen due to (a) the rapid development

occurring during these years; (b) schools’ need for such a measure; and (c) the linguistic and

cognitive capacities of adolescents to understand such an instrument and engage in self-reflection

and self-assessment.

The project’s goals were:

1. To use the conceptualized primary character strengths to construct the Character Growth

Index (CGI) as a multidimensional character measure; and

2. To validate CGI.

Method

Two studies were designed to meet these goals.

Study 1:

Creating and field testing a measure. The first task involved an iterative process of

Commented [17]: And the linguistic and cognitive capacities of adolescents to understand such an instrument and to engage in self-reflection and self-assessment.

Commented [18]: Done

Commented [19]: Probably shouldn’t treat the taxonomy as a “study.” Perhaps present this piece of the project in the intro section as a conceptual analysis. Then create the study questions as what you will do with the taxonomy; e.g. create items and a reliable measure and then validate it. Hence, two studies, not three. Then write up the method as almost two method sections: Study 1 and Study 2.



creating items to measure the 18 primary dimensions, field testing those items, analyzing the

results, adjusting definitions of the primary dimensions, improving the items, and repeat (Clark

& Watson, 1995). Items were created: (a) based on definitions provided by integrating expert

opinion; (b) to assess expression of the strength in current cognition, mood, and behavior; and (c)

that differentiate developmental progress rather than identify unchanging traits or fluctuating

emotional states (Clark & Watson, 1995; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Three to six items were

developed for each of the 18 primary dimensions of character with answers in a 5-point Likert

scale from “Very much like me” to “Not at all like me.”

Criteria required to determine a measure’s factorial structure vary among metric experts

but a common path can be found (Clark & Watson, 1995; Comrey & Lee, 1992; Costello &

Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; Garson, 2008; Hanson &

Roberts, 2006). From these sources was gleaned the following rigorous criteria to create a valid

assessment of character. These are considered this study’s essential and sufficient standards: (1)

Sample size (N) > 500 (Comrey & Lee, 1992; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999);

(2) EFA using Promax oblique rotation (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999); (3)

factors have Eigenvalue > 1.0; (4) factor’s structural coefficients are near or exceed .7

(Thompson & Daniel, 1996); (5) factors are easily-interpretable (Clark & Watson, 1995); (6)

each item within a factor must have a pattern matrix score nearing or >.4 without double-

factoring (Hanson & Roberts, 2006); and (7) each factor must have two or more qualifying

items.

This study analyzed its data using EFA in perhaps a novel manner. Rather than

attempting to reduce factors to the smallest total, the hope was to create such strong items that

they would factor with their hypothesized character strength. This is consistent with EFA’s


purpose as a procedure for inductive theory construction (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Fabrigar,

Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a procedure for

testing hypotheses deduced from a theory. In contrast, this study created items based on the best

available concepts of strengths and let EFA produce insight regarding the strengths’ cohesion

and structure (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Garson, 2008).

Field test 1. Two field tests were conducted. The first used two measures: MS and HS. MS

was designed for sixth and seventh grade students with three items for each of the 18 strengths

for 54 total items. HS was for eighth grade students, contained 67 items, and used a three-part

design. Similar to MS, the first section of 31 items were designed to measure the 18 strengths.

The second section involved reverse-scored items asking if the student acts in ways antithetical

to the character strengths. Its introduction asked, “To what degree do you have character

weaknesses and issues?” The purpose of this section was to test if students would recognize and

admit their character flaws. The third section was designed to measure intent or desire with

items such as: “I really want to be honest, trustworthy, and truthful.”

Both assessments were made available on the Qualtrics platform for online

administration (www.qualtrics.com). Three Missouri middle schools with similar demographics

were asked to have their seventh graders take the MS and their eighth graders take the HS. The

measures' titles and/or directions confused test administrators. As a result, instead of

approximately 400 students taking each measure, 663 completed the MS while only 135

answered all items of the HS (after data screening).

Because of the disproportionate number of respondents taking the two measures, MS

became the primary focus of analysis and is the basis of the following report. HS confirmed


most factors contained in MS and contributed items and additional factors useful for the second

field test.

MS produced a reliable measure (.901) with strong sampling adequacy (KMO .968), and

sphericity (.000). EFA indicated 11 factors met or approximated the criteria. Of the 18 primary

dimensions of character (above), 12 were well-represented in the measure:

● Five factored independent of other strengths (Kindness, Perseverance, Love,

Spirituality, and Honesty) according to the above requirements;

● Humility came very close to factoring with a structural coefficient of .683.

● Two hypothesized strengths (Hope and Zest) factored together to form F3 Optimism.

● Four (Forgiveness, Courage, Wisdom, and Peace) had items with strong alphas that

indicated they might meet the criteria with improved conceptualization and item

construction.

Items that factored in MS and HS were retained while double-factoring or near-factoring

items were revised and new items created. This produced 63 items for the second field test

hypothesized to assess 11 factors and three additional primary strengths with potential to factor:

Curiosity, Gratitude, and Creativity.

Field test 2. The second field test was taken by 493 middle school students and produced

483 valid tests after data screening. This measure was reliable (.923) with strong sampling

adequacy (.941) and met the sphericity assumption (.000). EFA produced 10 factors:

Perseverance, Humility, Optimism, Kindness, Love, Peace, Courage, Wisdom, Spirituality, and

Forgiveness. These ten represent 11 of the primary dimensions of character (Optimism included

hypothesized factors of Hope and Zest). 40 items had coefficient alphas > .4 and 24 of these


factored with their intended character strength.

The two field tests gave great insight into item creation in a multidimensional character

assessment. Numerous items in both tests had coefficient alphas > .4 but factored with strengths

other than the ones hypothesized. Strengths with several of these non-aligned items factored or

almost factored.

Character Growth Index (CGI). To create CGI, primary dimensions that had not

factored and items intending to assess them were deleted. Factor definitions were revised and

clarified based on field test data and in consultation with expert opinion (Biswas-Diener, 2011,

personal communication, April 12, 2013; A. Duckworth, personal communication, February 2,

2013; P. Heppner, personal communication, February 22, 2013; Lee & Ashton, 2006; R.M.

Lerner, personal communication, February 15, 2013; T. Lickona, personal communication,

February 27, 2013; W. Rowatt, personal communication, March 3, 2013; Worthington &

Scherer, 2004).

Twenty-four items that factored with their intended strength were retained. Sixteen items

that factored with other strengths, three items that double-factored with other strengths, and two

items having coefficient alphas nearing .4 were edited and retained. Ten new items were created

based on the items with their factor’s highest coefficient alphas. These included three items to

measure the eleventh strength found in the first field test – Honesty – that did not factor in the

second but was determined by expert opinion to be essential for a multidimensional character

measure (Lickona, 2004). Five items were to measure each strength (55 total).

Project 2: CGI Validation Study. A validation study requires administering both the

new assessment with an existing validated measure to the same subjects and preferably at the


same time. The best valid multidimensional character measure to validate is the VIA Youth

Survey (VIA-YS; Park, 2005; Park & Peterson, 2006a; 2006b; 2007). The Mayerson

Foundation, publishers of the VIA measures, suggested the 96-item version of the VIA-YS.

The researchers consulted secondary educators and determined that the combined tests’

151 items were too many for middle school students. CGI’s 11 factors were then compared to

the 24 VIA character strengths and 13 strengths correlated. Their 52 items (four to measure each

strength) were chosen to be the validation measure use in the validation study.

Nine CGI factors matched VIA-YS strengths: Courage, Kindness, Love, Spirituality,

Forgiveness, Humility, Honesty, Perseverance, and Self-Regulation (for CGI Peace). Two CGI

factors were hypothesized to correlate with more than one VIA-YS strength. CGI Wisdom was

conceptualized as including both VIA Judgment and Prudence. CGI Optimism combined VIA

Zest and Hope.

The 52 items from the VIA-YS had not been previously subjected to reliability and

validity measurement. Due to previous validation of the VIA-YS (Park & Peterson, 2006a,

2006b, 2009), researchers determined that, if EFA of the 13 subscales met the criteria for

construct validity, this confirmed validity.

As with the field tests, CGI was made available on the Qualtrics platform for computer

administration (www.qualtrics.com). 825 Midwest US middle school students completed over

90% of the items. Seven tests were invalidated due to patterned responses and/or finishing so

quickly (< 7 minutes) that it was believed they were not reading the questions (Meyers, Gamst,

& Guarino, 2006; Standards, 1985). Data from the remaining 784 tests were subjected to data

screening and analysis.


Results

Average administration time was 17 minutes. Cronbach’s alpha for the 55 CGI items

was .944 and test/retest at 9 weeks correlated at .720 indicating CGI is a reliable measure

(Diener, Inglehart, & Tay, 2012; Gay & Airasian, 2000). Sampling adequacy (.944) and

sphericity (significant at .000) were good. EFA and correlations for three data groups follows.

CGI factor analysis. EFA indicated CGI item construction was very strong (Hanson &

Roberts, 2006). 52 of 55 CGI items factored (95%) and the other three almost factored with

coefficient alphas of .353, .367, and .397. Only four items failed to group with their intended

factor. Eight of the 11 factors included all 5 of their hypothesized items.

Exploratory factor analysis produced all 11 hypothesized factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0

and explained 58.5% of the total variance. Coefficient alphas for six were > .8, four were .769-

.791, and the eleventh was .684. Table 1 shows the 11 CGI character strengths with their applied

factor definitions and structure coefficients.

Table 2. CGI Factors with Definitions and Structure Coefficients

CGI Factor Definition of Factor Structure

Coefficient

s

F1 Kindness Charitable, compassionate, and protective consideration and

treatment of others

.843

F2

Spirituality

Awareness of transcendence or Divinity that influences mood,

thought, and behavior

.871

F3

Perseverance

Continuing effort to complete one’s goal despite difficulty and

delay

.845

F4 Overcoming reactivity to perceived injustice

.806


Forgiveness

F5 Optimism Hopefulness, positivity, confidence, and enthusiasm .808

F6 Wisdom

Perception, foresight, and awareness of consequences that

enable good decision-making

.829

F7 Courage Brave, reasoned choices to act despite danger .791

F8 Peace Calmness despite agitation and stress .771

F9 Love /

Closeness

Close-knit relationship marked by enjoyment, endearment, and

trust

.769

F10 Honesty

Truthful overtly and covertly; authentic, creditable; without

duplicity or deceit; choosing not to lie, cheat, or steal

.684

F11 Humility

The willingness to admit mistakes, enjoy other’s success, and

know one’s strengths and weaknesses without need for

acclaim

.786

CGI Correlations. Inter-scale correlations are good if > .3 and strong if > .5 (Garson,

2008; Hanson & Roberts, 2006). Of 55 paired correlations, CGI had six strong (**) and 20 good

(*) correlations. Table 2 illustrates these.

Table 3. Inter-scale Correlations of CGI’s 11 Factors

Component Correlation Matrix

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Kindness

2 Spirituality .504**

3 Persvrance .406* .390*

4 Forgivnss .216 .253 .397*

5 Optimism .390* .505** .501** .373*

6 Wisdom .375* .405* .380* .138 .547**


7 Courage .355* .293 .547* .231 .320* .269

8 Peace .423* .372* .399* .295 .548** .485* .286

9 Love .287 .272 .288 .193 .270 .178 .103 .287

10 Honesty .369* .438* .369* .139 .359* .257 .257 .226 .233

11 Humility .216 .300* .266 -.019 .216 .190 .244 .177 .259 .416*

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

Validation. Correlation of CGI with the 52 items of the 96-item VIA Youth Survey using

Spearman’s rho was very strong at .851 (Garson, 2008; Hanson & Roberts, 2006). All paired

sample correlations were significant, ranging from .405-.806. Nine were .5 -.599, six were .6 -

.699, four were .7-.799, and Optimism was .806. Table 3 shows CGI factors on the X-axis and

VIA subscales on the Y-axis.

Table 4. Paired Sample Correlations of CGI Factors to VIA Subscales

Trait Correlates CSpir CFor CHon CHum CPer COpt CKin CLove CPea CCou CWis

VSpirituality .785** .252** .240** .219** .299** .341** .199** .276** .199** .201** .276**

VHonesty .305** .334** .405** .373** .427** .378** .347** .362** .387** .282** .493**

VHumility .442** .368** .379** .523** .308** .318** .389** .334** .354** .201** .356**

VForgiveness .266** .676** .312** .333** .300** .389** .350** .308** .447** .197** .405**

VPerseverance .316** .365** .532** .429** .740** .516** .368** .444** .428** .318** .621**

VLove .280** .388** .359** .337** .422** .584** .337** .560** .342** .261** .405**

VOptimism# .354** .466** .332** .391** .493** .806** .407** .517** .531** .466** .522**

VHope .334** .444** .318** .374** .492** .728** .343** .468** .537** .452** .500**

VZest .316** .411** .292** .343** .412** .748** .401** .479** .438** .403** .458**

VKindness .316** .391** .377** .400** .401** .422** .730** .497** .298** .233** .428**

VPeace .248** .358** .279** .419** .297** .317** .241** .227** .505** .268** .316**

VCourage .261** .353** .387** .452** .407** .440** .698** .362** .397** .426** .485**

VWisdom+ .340** .398** .413** .498** .516** .484** .363** .324** .509** .349** .650**

VJudgment .338** .408** .450** .481** .547** .492** .365** .338** .504** .345** .654**

VPrudence .284** .317** .296** .432** .389** .391** .298** .251** .427** .293** .533**

# VOptimism combines VIA subscales Hope and Zest

+ VWisdom combines VIA subscales Judgment and Prudence

VIA-YS analytics. EFA of the 52 VIA-YS items showed strong reliability (.937),


produced 11 factors (ten that were easily interpreted as identical to CGI factors), and had

acceptable structural coefficients. The two combined pairs of PP strengths (Judgment +

Prudence and Hope + Zest) factored together as this study hypothesized. Each pair comprises

one factor similar to CGI Wisdom and Optimism. Results indicate these combined 13 VIA-YS

subscales are a valid multidimensional measure of character.

EFA of all items. When independent EFAs of CGI and the 52 items from the 96-item

VIA Youth Survey produced 11 factors each, the question arose: Can a multidimensional

character measure contain even more than 11 distinct, interpretable factors? While considering

this, another question was asked: Could items intending to measure traits defined by differing

fields (Positive Psychology, Character Education, and Positive Youth Development) support the

same factor?

To answer these questions, a conjoint exploratory factor analysis (EFA) combined all

CGI and VIA-YS items. Data from the 107 items produced 19 factors with Eigenvalues > 1.0

accounting for 63.4% of variance. Eighteen factors were easily interpretable with sixteen having

items that created >.7 structural coefficients. 80% of items factored. CGI items factored

together with VIA items measuring the same strengths in Factors 1-5, 11, and 15. Eight CGI

items factored independently from VIA-YS items in Factors 6-10, 13, 14, and 16. VIA items

alone created Factor 12 (the reversed-scored items).

Discussion

The discussion reviews this study’s contributions to character conceptualization and to

metric analysis of character strengths, and its validation of CGI. Limitations and

recommendations for future studies are provided.


Character conceptualization. The following may contribute to research on character

strengths: (1) Consolidation or elimination of certain primary strengths that did not factor; (2)

CGI conceptualization and EFA results regarding Kindness, Courage, and Spirituality; (3) EFA

and correlation of CGI Optimism and Wisdom with the paired VIA subscales; and (4) EFA and

correlation of VIA Self-Regulation and CGI Peace.

Consolidation or elimination of primary strengths. Seven primary strengths did not

factor: Responsibility, Respect, Cooperation, Social Intelligence, Self-Control, Creativity, and

Gratitude. As anticipated, Responsibility and Respect were not specific enough for their items to

factor. Some suggest they are belief systems rather than specific character strengths (Salkovskis

et al., 2000). This would disqualify them as character strengths according to PP

conceptualization (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Davidson and Lickona (2010) employ

Responsibility and Respect prominently as broad categories encompassing all character traits

with some overlap. This seems their best use.

Cooperation, Social Intelligence, and Self-Control also seem broad. Cooperation has

been conceptualized in educational, social, and business settings as including many distinct

character strengths (DSC, 1993; Duckworth, 2011; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2005, 2011;

McAllister, 1995). Peterson & Seligman (2004) included Citizenship, Social Responsibility,

Loyalty, and Teamwork as synonyms for this one strength (p. x). CGI strengths of Love,

Kindness, Forgiveness, and perhaps Honesty and Humility overlap with Cooperation.

Social Intelligence is defined by Peter Salovey (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) as an ability

to think abstractly about interpersonal and intrapersonal signals concerning motives, feelings,

and thoughts that affect well-being. This ability involves at least three specific intelligences


(personal, social, and emotional) indicated by numerous skills that are best measured by actual

performance in problem-solving (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). He adds that this ability is not

accurately self-perceived as shown by repeated studies (Paulus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Social

intelligence seems to correlate with at least seven of 18 strengths from Table 1: Respect,

Cooperation, Gratitude, Humility, Love, Kindness, and Forgiveness.

Self-control is also termed self-regulation by PP (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Baumeister and Vohs use self-regulation as the broader term for personal efforts “to pursue goals

and live up to standards” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 500). Self-regulation thus defined

includes strengths of patience, self-control, self-discipline, perseverance, and the CGI concept of

Peace. Self-Regulation has also proven difficult to measure (Ashton et al., 2004; Duckworth,

2011; Lee & Ashton, 2006) and factor analysis of the best measures indicate the presence of two

or more dimensions (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Maloney, Grawitch, & Barber, 2012).

Factoring of CGI Peace and VIA Self-Control may contribute to conceptualization and

measurement of Self-Regulation and are discussed below.

These five from the Frequency Grid that did not factor – Responsibility, Respect,

Cooperation, Social Intelligence, and Self-Control – should be included in some way. Perhaps

better conceptualization and item construction would allow them to factor. Another possibility is

that, rather than character strengths, they are categories of strengths or a different psychological

structure. Perhaps they should be conceived multidimensionally as a construct of interrelated,

overlapping strengths that may be present in multiple dimensions and categories (Davidson,

Lickona, & Khmelkov, 2010; West et al., 2015). [LET’S DISCUSS THIS STATEMENT]


Creativity and Gratitude have been conceptualized and measured (Amabile, Conti, Coon,

Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; DSC, 1993; Duckworth, 2011; Lippman, Moore, & McIntosh, 2005,

2011; Wood, Maltby, Stewart, & Joseph, 2008). Park and Peterson (2006b, 2009) state these are

less developed in adolescents and see their greatest development in post-secondary years. As

measurable character strengths, these should be reviewed for conceptualization, item

construction, developmental appropriateness for adolescents, and possible reintroduction.

Insights from CGI conceptualization and EFA results. CGI conceptualization and

metric results provide insight regarding certain character strengths. Most notable are Kindness,

Courage, Spirituality, Optimism, Wisdom, and Peace. The first three are discussed in this

section and the last three are compared to their VIA counterparts in the following two sections.

Kindness and Courage. CGI items designed to measure Kindness all focus on social

settings where one has an opportunity to help another who is in need (e.g., “I help those in need,

even if they can’t help me in return”). It was observed that Kindness can be an internal feeling,

quality, state of being, or attitude (“kind-hearted”) and is not limited to actions (Merriam-

Webster, 1998). CGI Kindness is defined as, “Charitable, compassionate, and protective

consideration and treatment of others” and thus includes cognition, affect, and behavior. CGI

conceptualization intends to measure character development and this is best accomplished by

assessing one’s application of good intent to behavior (Lickona, 2004; Roth-Herbst, Borberly, &

Brooks-Gunn, 2008).

Courage items were based on expert opinion that defined Courage as “brave, noble, and

reasoned choices to act despite danger” (Biswas-Diener, 2012; Davidson & Lickona, 2009; Rate,

Clarke, Lindsay, & Sternberg, 2007; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Samuelson, 2007; Snyder &


Lopez, 2009). Three Courage items were designed to reflect this definition in both field tests.

The moral quality of noble action (Biswas-Diener, 2012) was addressed through Q42: “When

someone is in danger, I do something to help them.”

Q42’s factoring in CGI exposes a key conceptual difference between Kindness and

Courage. The four Courage items that factored together do not mention helping others. Instead

they describe the individual’s response to a dangerous, fearful, or risky situation requiring brave

action. Only Q42 mentions another person needing help and so it factored with Kindness.

This repeats an effect in both field tests where Courage items mentioning others factored

with Kindness. These items’ coefficient alphas were actually higher than some Kindness items

and thus were retained to measure Kindness.

EFA of the 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth Survey reflect this same confusion

between Kindness and Courage. VIA Bravery was the only strength that did not factor as

hypothesized. This was because two of its four items factored with VIA Kindness and two

double-factored with other strengths.

CGI Kindness and Courage are distinct by definition and by this study’s three EFAs. As

with all character strengths, both are internal values that result in outward action. Their

distinction is that Kindness is interactional and moral while Courage is autonomous and amoral.

One may be kind by courageous acts to help others but one may also be courageous for self-

preservation. Courage conceptually could be thought of as an aspect of performance character.

Kindness is an aspect of moral character that can be optimized and expressed with Courage

(Biswas-Diener, 2012; Davidson & Lickona, 2009; Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, & Sternberg, 2007).

Spirituality. EFA shows Spirituality accounted for more variance than all but one CGI


factor. One expert questioned whether Spirituality, defined as “Awareness of transcendence or

Divinity that influences mood, thought, and behavior,” was truly a virtue (“a disposition to act in

a good way”). VIA is removing Spirituality from its measures and replacing it with Purpose

(McGrath, 2015).

The authors of the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (Underwood & Teresi, 2002) define

Spirituality in a report written for the Fetzer Institute:

“Spirituality is concerned with the transcendent, addressing ultimate questions

about life’s meaning, with the assumption that there is more to life than what we see or

fully understand. Spirituality can call us beyond self to concern and compassion for

others” (Fetzer, 1998, p. 2).

Though numerous atheists consider themselves spiritual (Seligman, 2002), many do not

(AP/IPSOS, 2005). Atheists (those who profess to not believe in Divinity) comprise

approximately 2% of the US population and agnostics (those who profess to be undecided

regarding Divinity) about 4% (AP/IPSOS, 2005). In some communities, they are a vocal

minority who caused educators in one school who considered participating in this study to

decline due to the inclusion of Spirituality items (Liston, 2014).

CGI Spirituality’s definition and items intend to measure the strength universally

regardless of one’s religion and beliefs or lack of these. Spirituality is universal (Peterson &

Seligman, 2004) and all cultures embrace “…an ultimate, transcendent, sacred, and divine

force… [that] helps people to grapple with core existential concerns… and rules and values” (p.

601).

While psychological science must be sensitive to ideological and religious concerns,


empiricism and assessment demand objectivity (Standards, 1985). CGI is intended to measure

the primary dimensions of character. Spirituality was determined to be one such dimension.

EFA of all three tests in this study validated this as the Spirituality items factored strongly in

each. Discussion of this factor should continue toward consensus in the field.

Optimism and Wisdom. The two combined pairs of PP strengths (Judgment + Prudence

and Hope + Zest) factored together as this study hypothesized. Each pair comprises one factor

similar to CGI Wisdom and Optimism. For both these VIA factors, seven of their eight items

combined as hypothesized.

CGI Wisdom’s paired sample correlations with VIA Prudence (.533) is good and with

VIA Judgment (.654) and the combined subscales (.650) is better. CGI Optimism’s correlations

with VIA Hope (.728) and VIA Zest (.748) were very high. When Hope and Zest are combined,

their correlation with Optimism (.806) is the highest of the CGI/VIA paired samples (Table 4

above).

These findings could mean that the PP concepts of these strengths (a) should be changed

by combining them and/or (b) should include the strength pairs under the same virtue or

category. The original PP conceptualization categorized Zest under Courage and Hope under

Transcendence (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). EFA from at least two studies of the larger VIA

Inventory of Strengths showed Zest and Hope in the same factor (Brdr & Kashdan, 2010;

Macdonald, Bore, & Munro, 2008).

VIA Self-Regulation and CGI Peace. VIA Self-Regulation is “…Regulating what one

feels and does” (Park & Peterson, 2006, p. 894). Of its four VIA items, two ask about

controlling anger or temper while the other two mention patience and waiting (VIA, 2013). This


distinction may be responsible for its failure to factor. VIA Self-Regulation’s structural

coefficient scored below threshold (.668) and one item double-factored with another VIA

negatively-worded item.

CGI Peace, defined as “calmness despite agitation and stress,” had items regarding peace

despite distress caused by personal encounters or circumstances. This implies Peace is a form of

Self-Regulation as defined above. Its structural coefficient was .771 and all 5 items factored

together.

Though conceptually similar, CGI Peace and VIA Self-Regulation’s correlation was good

at .505 but lower than all but two paired factors (Table 4 above). When CGI and VIA-YS items

were combined in EFA, four of five CGI items factored together with a good structural

coefficient (.759) and the fifth factored (.592) with a VIA Self-Regulation item mentioning the

ability to wait. The remaining VIA Self-Regulation items did not factor.

These data could aid conceptualization that self-regulation is an encompassing concept

comprised of multiple strengths such as patience, self-discipline, self-control, and perseverance

(Ashton et al., 2004; Duckworth, 2011; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2006;

Maloney, Grawitch, & Barber, 2012). CGI Peace seems to measure another self-regulation

strength: Calmness, stress-resistance, and the ability to deal with agitation and provocation.

Metric analysis of character strengths. This study’s data provide the following to aid

assessment of character strengths: (1) the ability of all 11 hypothesized strengths to factor; (2)

EFA of VIA Youth Survey subscales; and (3) EFA of the combined CGI and VIA-YS items.

The ability of each hypothesized strength to factor. Attempting to create items for each

character strength that would factor independent of other strengths may be an uncommon


approach to create and validate a measure. The criteria were designed to be rigorous: 1) Sample

size (N) > 500; 2) EFA using Promax oblique rotation; 3) factors have Eigenvalue > 1.0; 4)

factor’s structural coefficients are near or exceed .7; 5) factors are easily-interpretable; 6) each

item within a factor must have a pattern matrix score nearing or >.4 without double-factoring;

and 7) each factor must have two or more qualifying items.

Now that this study’s data meet the criteria, the question is how to interpret the results’

significance. These researchers could not find a validation study with similar results. Certainly

the high correlation with the validity measure and strong paired sample correlations support this

approach. While exploratory factor analysis criteria continue to be debated, those chosen for this

study are based on expert opinion. Perhaps this finding will contribute to research and test

construction theory.

EFA of VIA Youth Survey subscales. Metrics of 52 items from the 96-item VIA Youth

Survey showed similarities to CGI EFA. When all 198 items from the larger VIA-YS were

reduced, only four or five factors emerged (Brdr & Kashdan, 2010; Macdonald, Miles, & Monro,

2008; Park & Peterson, 2006b, 2007, 2009). With only 52 items, EFA of VIA-YS produced 11

factors that met or came close to this study’s criteria and ten are virtually identical to CGI

factors. It could be said that this study validated not one but two multidimensional measures of

character: CGI and these combined VIA-YS subscales (Liston, 2014).

EFA of the combined CGI and VIA-YS items. This EFA produced the following

findings.

Strength conceptualization. One concern a few experts in the three fields (PP, CE, and

PYD) expressed regarded variance in conceptualization. Though the PP definitions of the 13


strengths differed significantly from those of CGI, almost half of the factors shared items from

both measures. Thus items intending to measure strengths defined by differing fields can

support the same factor.

CGI item construction. EFA of the combined CGI and VIA-YS demonstrates the

strength of the CGI items. Items from each combined to create seven factors and showed

convergent validity. Eight of 16 factors were comprised of only CGI items while one factor –

comprised of negatively-worded items – had only VIA-YS items.

Number of factors. This EFA also determined that a multidimensional character measure

can contain more than 11 distinct, interpretable factors. This suggests that, if additional strengths

were added to CGI, they could possibly factor. This gives hope that a comprehensive character

measure that meets strong criteria for validity can be created with at least 16 factoring strengths.

The concept of large numbers of factors in one measure as validation of item construction and

strength conceptualization begs for greater discussion and analysis by metric experts.

Validation of CGI. Because the selected 52 items of the 96-item VIA Youth Survey are

valid, reliable, and factor almost identically to CGI, they provide a psychometrically sufficient

measure for this validation study. CGI’s high correlation with VIA could indicate that the three

character fields are closely related. Paired sample correlations show nine of CGI’s 11 factors

have good correlation with their paired VIA concept >.5 and five of these are strong at >.7 (Gay

& Airasian, 2000; Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995; Heppner & Heppner, 2004; Meyers,

Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).

Those looking for a means to measure adolescent character have a valid assessment. CGI

is a starting point for quantitative study. Hopefully strengths research will move forward toward


the goal of measuring character growth with CGI pre- and posttests in a longitudinal study with

character training interventions such as C2: Character Challenge (Liston, 2007).

Limitations and recommendations. Limitations of this study involve (1) the somewhat

arbitrary scoring and interpretation of experts’ strength lists and elimination or merging of

strengths to determine the primary dimensions; (2) the lack of testing for higher-order factoring

due to the high correlation among factors; (3) the lack of context and relational assessment, e.g.,

family, socioeconomic factors, school culture, community, etc. (Lerner & Callina, 2014); and (4)

limiting subjects to grades 6-8 rather than a broader developmental range.

Future CGI studies should seek: (1) to employ a developmental model of character’s

function, structure, and content to improve conceptualization (Lerner & Callina, 2014); (2) to

theorize character multidimensionally as represented by a construct of interrelated, overlapping

strengths that may be present in multiple dimensions, meta-strengths, and categories (Davidson,

Lickona, & Khmelkov, 2010; West et al., 2015); (3) to independently evaluate each item’s

design to ensure they can assess development; (4) to conduct confirmatory factor analysis to

discover second-order factors and measure discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity; (5)

to add observer reports by teachers, parents, peers, and mentors; (6) to add context and relational

evaluation that includes family, school, and community; (7) to employ CGI in longitudinal

studies designed with character training interventions; (8) to develop a structural equation model

(Steyer, Eid, & Schwenkmezger, 1997) such as the integrated state-trait model (Hamaker,

Nesselroade, & Molenaar, 2007) to analyze CGI results and determine CGI’s ability to measure

character growth; and (8) to develop norms for gender, age, and other demographics.


Conclusion

The study’s goal of validating a multidimensional character measure was ambitious. [IS

THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH NECESSARY?] To accomplish this, the path prescribed

by expert opinion to create a multidimensional psychological measure was followed (Clark &

Watson, 1995; Gilman, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2000). Further expert opinion helped develop a

construct (Primary dimensions of character) and items were developed, field tested, subjected to

EFA, and revised to construct the CGI measure. The validation study was conducted with an

adequate and valid sample and proved reliable. EFA produced 11 hypothesized factors

according to rigorous criteria. A correlation metric established construct and convergent validity

by correlating CGI with the validation measure at .851.

CGI performed as hypothesized. This study’s data analysis and interpretation indicate:

1. CGI with 55 items can measure 11 character traits reliably with 11 distinct yet

correlated factors; and

2. CGI is a valid instrument to measure these 11 dimensions of adolescent character.

This study’s research question is: Can a valid, reliable measure of multi-dimensional

adolescent character be developed? The results answer the question affirmatively.

[IS THIS PARAGRAPH NECESSARY?] This study produced both significant

insights into character conceptualization and measurement and its intended outcomes. What

remains to be determined is whether, in a longitudinal study with a character training

intervention, CGI can show multidimensional character growth. To our knowledge, no

quantitative instrument has this ability.

Knowing one’s level of character strength and one’s growth over time could provide an


objective, robust, and reliable indicator of present and future well-being (Park & Peterson,

2006b; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). More specifically, if character strengths can be identified,

defined, and measured, one’s own “signature strengths” (greatest character strengths; Park &

Peterson, 2007) could be purposefully exercised while one’s “character challenges” (weaker or

more variable character strengths; Liston, 2007) could be fortified (Baumeister, 2012).

Keywords: Assessment, character, Character Education, character development,

character growth, Character Growth Index, CGI, character strengths, measurement, Positive

Psychology, VIA

References

Allport, G.W. (1937). The functional autonomy of motives. American Journal of Psychology,

50, pp. 141-156.

AP/IPSOS. (2005). AP/Ipsos poll: Religious fervor In U.S. surpasses faith in many other highly

industrial countries. Ipsos.com. June 6. Retrieved 7/23/14 at http://www.ipsos-

na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=2694

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., & De Raad, B.

(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from

psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of personality and social psychology,

86(2), 356.

Bailey, K.D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques.


Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumeister, R. (2012). Can Virtuous habits be cultivated? Retrieved July 24, 2012 at

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/can-virtuous-habits-be-cultivated

Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Hamilton, S.F., & Sesma, A., Jr. (with Hong, K.L., &

Roehlkepartain, E.C.). (2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and

their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence, 3(1), 1–

13.

Berkowitz, M. & Bier, M. (2006). What works in character education. St. Louis, MO: Center for

Character & Citizenship.

Berkowitz, M.W. & Bustamante, A. (2013). Using research to set priorities for character

education in schools: A global perspective. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 2013, 7-

20. http://eng.kedi.re.kr

Biswas-Diener, R. (2012). The courage quotient: How science can make you braver. San

Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). The Five

Cs Model of Positive Youth Development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor

structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 720-

735.

Brdr, I., & Kashdan, T.B. (2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical

investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 151-154.

Brener, N., Billy, J.O.G., & Grady, W.R. (2002). Assessment of factors affecting the validity of

self-reported health risk behavior among adolescents: Evidence from the scientific


literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 436-457.

Bulach, C. R. (1996). Character traits. Retrieved 5.21.12 from

http://www.westga.edu/~cbulach/character.htm.Bulach, C. R. (2002). Comparison of

character traits for JROTC student versus non-JROTC students. Education, 122(3), 559-

563.

Bulach, C. R. (2000). Evaluating the impact of a character education curriculum. Paper presented

at the Character Education Partnership Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Carpenter, T. P. (1981). Results from the Second Mathematics Assessment of the National

Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, Inc. Retrieved 11/25/14 at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED204107

Clark, L.A. & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

Cleary, T. (Ed. & Trans.). (1991). Vitality, energy, spirit: A Taoist sourcebook. Boston:

Shambhala.

Cleary, T. (1992). Introduction. In T. Cleary (Trans.), The essential Confucius. New York:

HarperCollins.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2013). Compendium of

http://www.westga.edu/~cbulach/character.htm


preschool through elementary school social emotional learning and associated

assessment measures. Retrieved August 12, 2013 from http://casel.org/wp-

content/uploads/Compendium_SELTools.pdf

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for

field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research

& Evaluation, 10(7). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7

Cronbach, L.J. & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological

Bulletin, 52. 281–302.

Davidson, M. & Lickona, T. (2009). Character = values in action. Cortland, NY: Center for the

4th and 5th Rs.

Davidson, M., Lickona, T., & Khmelkov, V. (2010). Performance character and moral character.

Ethics and Excellence, 8. Retrieved at http://www2.cortland.edu/dotAsset/248924.pdf.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Denham, S., Ji, P. & Hamre, B. (2010). Social-emotional learning and associated assessment.


Chicago: CASEL at http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/Compendium_SELTools.pdf

Diener, E., Biswas-Diener, R., & Liston, M. (2012). Youth Flourishing Scale. Unpublished

measure.

Diener, E., & Gonzalez, E. (2011). The validity of life satisfaction measures. Social

Indicator Network News. 108, 1-5.

Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2012). The validity of life satisfaction measures. Social

Indicators Research, in press.

Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2007). Subjective well-being and peace. Journal of Social Issues, 63,

421-440.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R.

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and

negative feelings. Social Indicator Research, 97, 143-156.

Duckworth, A. L. (2011). The significance of self-control. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences, 108(7), 2639-40.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-

1101.

Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale

(Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174.


Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use

of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3),

272.

Garson, G.D. (2008). Factor analysis. Raleigh, NC: Statnotes.

Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research. Sixth edition. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Gerbing, D.W. & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,

2, 186-192.

Gestsdottir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development

and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51(3), 202-224.

Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing cognitive representations of test developers and students on a

mathematics test with Bloom's Taxonomy. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(1),

26-32.

Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). A first study of the Multidimensional

Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale with adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 52(2),

135-160.

Guo, P, Choe, J, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2011). Report of construct validity and internal

consistency findings for the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory. Unpublished


manuscript.

Haldane, J. (2014). Can virtue be measured? Paper, Oxford, UK: Retrieved November 5, 2015

from www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/conference-papers/can-virtue-

be-measured/haldane-john.pdf

Hamaker, E. L., Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. (2007). The integrated trait–state model.

Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 295-315.

Hanson, R.K. & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:

Common errors and some comment on improved practices. Educational and

Psychological Measurement 2006 66: 393. DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282485

Hanson, T., Dietsch, B., & Zheng, H. (2012). Lessons in Character Impact Evaluation. (NCEE

2012-4004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological

assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological assessment,

7(3), 238.

Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal

problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 66-75.

Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human

http://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/conference-papers/can-virtue-


adjustment: A review of 20 years of research using the Problem Solving Inventory. The

Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 344-428.

Howard, R., Berkowitz, M., & Schaeffer, E. (2004). The politics of character education.

Educational Policy, 18, 1, 188-212. Retrieved 4/9/12 at

http://www.fresnostate.edu/bonnercenter/documents/Politics.pdf

Humphreys, L. G. & Montanelli, R. G. (1975). An examination of the parallel analysis

criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 10, 193-206.

John, O.P., & Naumann, L.P. (2010). Surviving two critiques by Block? The resilient Big Five

have emerged as the paradigm for personality trait psychology. Psychological Inquiry,

21, 44–49.

John Templeton Foundation (JTF). (2013). What we fund. Retrieved 7/22/13 at

http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/core-funding-areas

Johns, J. 1997. Character Development Survey. Retrieved 3/12/12 at

http://www.utahciviccoalition.org/downloads/Utah_Comm_Partnership_for_Char_Devel

opment.pdf

Johns, J. 2001. Utah community partnership for character education: Final report, 1995-1999.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington DC. Retrieved 3/12/12 at

http://www.utahciviccoalition.org/downloads/Utah_Comm_Partnership_for_Char_Devel

opment.pdf

Josephson Institute. 2009. Michael Josephson: The man behind the mission. Retrieved 5.21.12 at

http://www.fresnostate.edu/bonnercenter/documents/Politics.pdf


http://josephsoninstitute.org//pdf/MichaelBioPage.pdf

Josephson, M. 2011. The nature of character. Commentaries. Radio address 11.28.11. Retrieved

5.21.12 at http://whatwillmatter.com/2011/11/commentary-what-is-character-751-2/

Josephson, M. S., & Hanson, W. (2004). The power of character. Unlimited Publishing.

Kenny, D.A. & Kashy, D.A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by

confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), Jul 1992, 165-172.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory:

two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological assessment, 18(2), 182.

Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998).

Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents.

Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209–230.

Lerner, R.M., & Callina, K.S. (2014). The study of character development: Towards tests of a

relational developmental systems model. Human Development, 57, 322-346.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S.,

Jelicic, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D.,

Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development,

participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions

of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive

Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.

Lickona, T. 2004. Character Matters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2003). Eleven principles of effective character education.

http://whatwillmatter.com/2011/11/commentary-what-is-character-751-2/


Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Linley, A., Maltby, J., Wood, A.M., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., Peterson, C., et al. (2007).

Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA inventory of strengths. Personality

and Individual Differences, 43, 341-351.

Lippman, L. H., Moore, K. A., & McIntosh, H. (2005). What do children need to flourish? L.H.

Lippman & K.A. Moore, Eds. The Search Institute Series on Developmentally Attentive

Community and Society, 3. New York: Springer.

Lippman, L. H., Moore, K. A., & McIntosh, H. (2011). Positive indicators of child well-being: A

conceptual framework, measures, and methodological issues. Applied Research in

Quality of Life, 6(4), 425-449.

Liston, M. (2007). Character challenge. Joplin, MO: Pursuing Happiness.

Liston, M. (2011). Measuring student character strength using the Signature Strength

Assessment –Youth. Unpublished manuscript.

Liston, M. (2014). Conceptualizing and validating the Character Virtues Index (CVI). (Order

No. 3633828, University of Missouri - Saint Louis). ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses, 334. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1611144972?accountid=35915. (1611144972).

Lopez, S. & Snyder, C.R.(Eds.). (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of

models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1611144972?accountid=35915


Loyd, S. (2013). Creating effective surveys. Retrieved 4.13.12 at

http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/create-online-survey/

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(3), 616-628.

Luhmann, M., Lucas, R. E., Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2013). The prospective effect of life

satisfaction on life events. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 39-45.

doi: 10.1177/1948550612440105

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:

Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel psychology,

60(3), 541-572.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

Macdonald, C., Miles, B., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An

empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 4, 787–799.

Maloney, P. W., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2012). The multi-factor structure of the Brief

Self-Control Scale: Discriminant validity of restraint and impulsivity. Journal of

Research in Personality, 46(1), 111-115.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.


McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American

Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebícková, M., Avia, M.D., Sanz,

J., Sánchez-Bernardos, M.L., Kusdil, M.E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P.R., & Smith, P.B.

(2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.

McGrath, R. E. (2015). Revising the VIA Inventory of Strengths: The VIA-IS-R. Fourth World

Congress on Positive Psychology. June 25-28, 2015. Orlando, FL.

McGrath, R. E., Rashid, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2010). Is optimal functioning a distinct

state? The Humanistic Psychologist, 38(2), 159-169.

Mellon, J. C. (1975). National Assessment and the Teaching of English: Results of the First

National Assessment of Educational Progress in Writing, Reading, and Literature.

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved 11/25/14 at

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED112427

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition). (1998). Springfield, MA.

Meyers, L., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Narvaez, D. & Nucci, L. (2008). Handbook of Moral and Character Education. New York:


Routledge.

Nucci, L. (2008). Teacher education and professional development in character

education. Paper prepared for the Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-

Free Schools, August 26, 2008.

Overton, W. F. (2012) Evolving scientific paradigms: Retrospective and prospective. The role of

paradigms in theory construction. Ed. L. L’Abate, pp. 31–65. Springer.

Park, N. (2005). VIA Youth Survey. Cincinnati, OH: Values In Action.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2006a). Character strengths and happiness among young children:

Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 323-341

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2006b). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents:

The development and validation of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for

Youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 891-905.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2009). Strengths of character in schools. R. Gilman, E.S. Huebner, &

M.J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. London: Routledge.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal

of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.

Person, A., Moiduddin, E., Hague-Angus, M., & Malone, L. (2009). Survey of outcomes

measurement in research on character education programs (SOMRCEP ; NCEE 2009-

006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional


Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Peterson, C. 2006. Primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C. & Park, N. (2009). Classifying and measuring strengths of character. In S. J. Lopez

& C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2nd edition, 25-33.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.). (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York:

Oxford University Press and Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Peterson, C., Seligman, M.E.P., & Park, N. (2003). Values In Action Inventory of Strengths.

Cincinnati, OH: VIA Institute.

Rashid, T. (2011). Report on adolescent strength testing using the Values In Action Strengths

Survey. Presentation July 25, 2011 at the Institute of Positive Psychology Studies semi-

annual World Conference, Philadelphia.

Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories of

courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 80-98.

Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social

investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in

Personality, 39(1), 166-184.

Rosebush, M. 2012. Validations of the Character Mosaic Report. US Air Force Academy's

Center for Character and Leadership Development.

Roth-Herbst, J. L., Borberly, C. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Developing indicators of


confidence, character, and caring in adolescence. In B. V. Brown (Ed.), Key indicators

of child and youth well-being: Completing the picture,167-196. New York: Taylor

& Francis.

Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty

integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel

selection. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 787-829.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). The contribution of

developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied

Developmental Science, 4, 27-46.

Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific

research on adolescent development (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Search Institute. (1997). 40 developmental assets. Retrieved 4/14/12 at http://www.search-

institute.org/developmental-assets

Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being.

New York: Free Press.

Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations

of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Social and Character Development Research Consortium (SCDRC) (2010). Efficacy of


schoolwide programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem

behavior in elementary school children (NCER 2011-2001). Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education.

Standards for educational and psychological testing (Standards). (1985). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Steen, T. A., Kachorek, L. V., & Peterson, C. (2003). Character strengths among youth. Journal

of Youth & Adolescence, 32(1), 5-16.

Steyer, R., Eid, M., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1997). Modeling true intraindividual change: True

change as a latent variable. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(1), 21-33.

Tatman, R., Edmonson, S., & Slate, J. R. (2009). Character education: A critical analysis.

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(4), 1-14.

Theokas, C., Almerigi, J. B., Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & von

Eye, A. (2005). Conceptualizing and modeling individual and ecological asset

components of thriving in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 113-

143.

Toner, E., Haslam, N., Robinson, J., & Williams, P. (2012). Character strengths and wellbeing in

adolescence: Structure and correlates of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for


Children. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 637-642.

Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). What is the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix? Research Methods

Knowledge Base. Retrieved at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/mtmmmat.php

United States Department of Education (USDE) (2007). Mobilizing for Evidence-Based

Character Education. Washington, D.C.: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

United States Department of Education (USDE) (2012a). FY2012 Education Budget Summary

and Background Information. Retrieved at

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/edlite-section1.html

United States Department of Education (USDE) (2012b). Guide to the US Department of

Education programs FY 2012. Retrieved at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gtep/gtep.pdf

United States Department of Education (2012c). Partnerships in Character Education program.

Archived information. Retrieved at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/charactered/index.html

United States Department of Education (USDE) (2013a). Mission. Retrieved at

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/mission.html?src=ln

United States Department of Education (USDE) (2013b). Supporting student success: Fiscal year

2014 budget requests. Retrieved at

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget14/justifications/f-sss.pdf

United States House of Representatives. (2012). 112th Congress House Report 112-106.


Footnote 17. Retrieved at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112jaC4x&r_n=hr106.112&dbname=cp112&&sel=TOC_33921&

Values In Action (VIA) (2010). VIA Youth Survey. Cincinnati, OH: Values In Action. Retrieved

http://www.viacharacter.org/www/en-us/research/psychometricdatayouthsurvey.aspx

Values In Action (VIA) (2013). Research approval agreement. VIA Institute on Character.

Cincinnati, OH: Values In Action.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (2006). Character Education Interventions Evidence Review

Protocol, September, 2006. Retrieved at

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/document.aspx?sid=23

West, M.R., Kraft, M.A., Finn, A.S., Martin, R., Duckworth, A.L., Gabrieli, C.F.O., & Gabrieli,

J.D.E. (2015). Promise and paradox: Measuring students’ non-cognitive skills and

the impact of schooling. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, XX, X, 1–23.

Worthington, E. L., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy

that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and

hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19(3), 385-405.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-

is character development quantifiable? mark a. liston … · · 2017-04-26is character...

Documents