Developed by

Duane Brown, Ph.D. R. Kelly Crace, Ph.D

Copyright © 1996, 2002

All Rights Reserved

The text of this publication, or any part, thereof, may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

storage in an information retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

AAAppppppllliiieeeddd PPPsssyyyccchhhooolllooogggyyy RRReeesssooouuurrrccceeesss,,, IIInnnccc ... Psychological Consulting, Counseling and Educational Resources

1581 River Ridge

Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 757.258.5201

www.lifevaluesinventory.com

Facilitator’s Guide

1

1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Values have long been viewed as importantdeterminants of human behavior (Allport,Vernon & Lindzey, 1960; Rokeach, 1973; Super,1990). Moreover, values have been empiricallylinked to important aspects of organizationalbehavior (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989),academic performance (Coyne, 1988), careerdecision making (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987), andmarital satisfaction (Vaitkus, 1995). They havealso been identified as important determinants ofculturally unique behavior (Sue & Sue, 1990), andthus are critical to the understanding of culturaldifferences. In spite of the demonstratedinfluence of values on human functioning, careercounselors, marriage counselors, healtheducators, organizational psychologists, andothers have typically not used values measuresbecause of the absence of an empirically based,easily administered and scored values inventory.The Life Values Inventory (LVI; Crace & Brown,1996) was developed to fill this void.

Historically, values inventories have beendeveloped either as general measures of values(e.g. Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960) with nodirect link to life roles, or as work valuesinventories (e.g. Nevill & Super, 1986) withrelationships to the work role only. Work valuesinventories encourage practitioners and others toignore other life roles in the career planningprocess, which seems inappropriate given theinteractions that occur between the work role andother life roles. On the other hand, inventoriessuch as the Rokeach Values Survey (Rokeach, 1973)have limited utility because they provide nocrosswalks to make decisions about careers,suitable marital partners, leisure activities, and so

forth based on the results. The LVI is an attemptto bridge the chasm between work valuesinventories and general values inventories byproducing a values inventory that can be used asa decision-making aid by people who aregrappling with decisions regarding work,education, relationships, and leisure.

The LVI is also an attempt to promote holisticthinking in the decision-making process. For toolong practitioners have focused on one role at atime as they assisted people to make careerselections, deal with marital problems or choosefrom among leisure activities. Hopefully,practitioners who use the LVI will eschewfocusing on one role in favor of a holisticapproach to role-related decision making.

Defining Values

The first step in the process of developing theLVI was to adopt a definition of values. MiltonRokeach's (1973) definition of values has beenadopted. He defined values as standards that notonly guide the behavior of the individuals who hold them,but serve as their basis for judging the behavior of others.Rokeach differentiated values from interests ontwo grounds: the role of values as standards, andthe number of values people have versusinterests. Interests are preferences or likes, notstandards against which individuals judge theirown behavior as well as the functioning of others.Moreover, individuals may develop dozens ofinterests, but they develop relatively few values.Needs may also serve as a guide to behavior, butaccording to Rokeach (1973), needs are

2

transitory, and once satiated, may not influencebehavior for varying amounts of time. Valuesdevelop so that individuals can meet their needsin socially acceptable ways, but unlike needs,transcend situations and are stable influences onbehavior. Finally, not only do values provideindividuals with a basis for judging theappropriateness of their behavior in the present,they provide individuals with a sense of whatends they would like to attain in the future.Values, once developed, become the primarybasis for goal setting.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Brown's Holistic Values-Based Theory of LifeRole Choice and Satisfaction (Brown, 1996;Brown & Crace, 1995) underpins the LVI. Thistheory draws on Rokeach's (1973) theory andresearch, as well as some aspects of Super's(1990) theory, to explain the decision-makingprocess and the satisfaction that results from rolerelated decisions. The basic propositions of thetheory are as follows:

Each person develops a relatively small number of valuesthat are organized into a dynamic values system.Rokeach (1973) suggested that there are 36human values, but factor analysis of his worksuggests the number is much smaller(Braithewaite & Law, 1985). The LVI measures14 values that are guides to behavior as peoplemake important life decisions.

Crystallized, highly prioritized values are the mostimportant determinant of life role choices so long as values-based information regarding the choices is available.Crystallized values have meaningful labels anddefinitions that can be used by individuals todescribe themselves. In the event that none of theoptions available will satisfy the values of thedecision maker, the option that conflicts leastwith strongly held, highly prioritized values willbe selected. Research by Ravlin & Meglino (1987)and Judge and Bretz (1992) strongly suggests that,when options that are related to the strongly held

values of the decision-maker are available in thedecision-making process, those options arefrequently chosen. Moreover, Schulenberg,Vondracek, and Kim (1993) found that certaintyof career choice was directly related to thestrength of the values held by the individuals theystudied.

Values are the dominant factor in the decision-makingprocess, but other factors influence decision making as well.Self-efficacy and interests will also have an impacton decision making (Bandura, 1986; Feather,1988; Rokeach, 1973). Feather (1988) investigatedthe career choice making of college students andfound that, while values were the dominant factorin the decision-making process, self-efficacybecame a factor when one of the options beingconsidered was viewed as more difficult to attainthan the others being considered.

Because of the diverse sources of information andexperiences that influence values development, it is likelythat each person will have values conflicts. Whencompeting values come into play in the decision-making process the result will be ambivalentfeelings and perhaps procrastination. Thishypothesis has not been tested directly.

Because of differences in their socialization process and thevalues laden information they receive, males and femalesand people from various cultural backgrounds are apt todevelop differing values systems. Cross-cultural studiesof values by Brenner, Blazini, and Greenhaus(1988), Leong (1991), and others have shown thatvalues vary by gender and ethnicity.

Life satisfaction will be more than the sum of the productsof the life roles filled taken separately. This hypothesishas not been tested at this time, althoughHesketh (1993) and others have written insupport of this idea.

Life roles interact in characteristic fashions. They mayinteract synergistically (complementary),entropically (conflicting), or interact to maintainhomeostasis (supplementary) (Super, 1980). In adirect test of this hypothesis, Pittman andOrthner (1988) found that job commitment could

3

be predicted by perceptions of the extent towhich the organization was perceived to besupportive of their families. In another relatedstudy, Watson and Ager (1991) found that thefrequency with which people between the ages of50 and 90 performed valued life roles was directlyrelated to life satisfaction. Finally, O’Driscoll,Ilgen, and Hildreth (1992) found that there werenegative links among the amount of time spenton the job, factors that interfered with the job,and satisfaction with off-the-job roles.

The salience of a single role can be determined by theextent to which that role satisfies crystallized, highlyprioritized values. However, few people will have allof their values satisfied in a single role. Whenmore than one role is required to satisfy values,the salience of values in the values systems shiftsdynamically as the person moves from role torole because of the expectation that differentvalues will be satisfied in different roles. Flannelly(1995), who used a modified version of the LVIin his research, found that when people rated thevalues they hoped to satisfy within various roles,their ratings varied significantly from role to role.

Success in a life role will be dependent upon (1) thecongruency between the individual’s values and those ofothers in the role; (2) role-related skills the person hasdeveloped prior to entering the role; (3) the aptitudespossessed by the person in the role to change as thedemands of the role change; and (4) the nature of theinteraction of the role with other roles occupied by theindividual. Ravlin and Meglino (1987) found adirect relationship between the congruence ofsupervisors and workers values and jobsatisfaction. Research on the Theory of WorkAdjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) has alsobeen supportive of this proposition.

Several types of values-based problems develop that requiretherapeutic interventions. These include (1) valuespoorly crystallized and/or poorly prioritized; (2)intrapersonal values conflicts; (3) intrarole valuesconflicts; (4) interrole conflicts that may or maynot be values-based; and (5) perceptions thatvalues satisfaction is blocked resulting indepression. Approaches to dealing with these

problems will be addressed in Chapter Four. Thisproposition has not been tested directly at thistime.

Overview of the LVI

LVI Content

The LVI contains 42 items that measure 14relatively independent values. The valuesmeasured by the LVI are Achievement,Belonging, Concern for the Environment,Concern for Others, Creativity, FinancialProsperity, Health and Activity, Humility,Independence, Interdependence, ObjectiveAnalysis, Privacy, Responsibility, and Spirituality.These scales are defined in Chapter Three. Ittakes approximately 20 minutes to complete theLVI.

Assessment Methods

In the process of taking the LVI, people areasked both to rate the strength of their values andto rank them in order of importance. Rankin andGrube (1980) concluded that, while rating andranking methods produce many of the samefindings, each has its place in the measurement ofvalues. Thompson, Levitov, and Miederhoff(1982) were more specific. They concluded thatranking methodology is preferred wheninformation about the values held by theindividual is desired, but that when valuesinventories are used in research to investigategroup perceptions of values, rating methods ofassessment are preferred. Accordingly, peopletaking the LVI are first asked to rate the degree towhich the beliefs contained in the 42 items arecurrent guides to their behavior. The next step inthe assessment process is for individuals to rankorder their most important values. The final stepin the process is for each individual to rank theimportance of the values they hope to havesatisfied in each of three life roles: Work,Important Relationships, and Leisure andCommunity Activities. A copy of the Life Values

4

Inventory (1996 & 2002 versions) can be found inAppendix A.

Psychometric Properties

Information regarding the technical developmentof the LVI can be found in Chapter Two. Thescales of the LVI were selected on the basis of aseries of factor analytic studies. Many of theexisting values inventories contain scales that arehighly correlated, sometimes exceeding .50.Because intercorrelations of this magnitudeconfound the interpretation process, oneobjective in the development of the LVI was toproduce values scales that were relativelyindependent. Two methods were used todetermine the reliability of the scales of the LVI,test-retest and internal consistency usingCronbach's alpha. As will be seen in ChapterTwo, both types of reliability coefficients are inthe satisfactory range. The validity of the LVI wasdetermined using traditional convergent anddivergent validity checks as well as a morerigorous predictive validity check.

Cultural Sensitivity

As noted above, one of the objectives in thedevelopment of the LVI was to produce aninstrument that has acceptable psychometricproperties. However, a second objective waspursued just as vigorously: To produce aculturally sensitive instrument that could be usedwith confidence with both genders and all majorcultural groups. To attain this end, the LVI wassubjected to two rounds of reviews byknowledgeable representatives of several culturalgroups and subgroups. At various stages ofdevelopment of the instrument, feedback was

received from professionals who were aware ofthe issues involved in measuring values in variouscultural groups, including representatives fromAfrican American, Asian American, Hispanic,and Native American cultures. The items anddirections were also reviewed to determinewhether they were sensitive to the uniqueconcerns of women.

Uses of the LVI

The LVI was developed for use in couplescounseling, career counseling, retirementcounseling and planning, leisure counseling, teambuilding (either in sport or the workplace), andother activities in which decision making and/orinterpersonal functioning is important. A fullerdescription of the uses of the LVI can be foundin Chapter Four.

Summary

The LVI was developed to serve as an aid inmaking decisions about life roles. It measures 14normal human values that guide behavior. TheLVI is predicated on the proposition that peoplefunction holistically, and that when making adecision regarding one’s life role, the influence ofthat decision on the other roles in which theperson is engaged should be considered. In thechapters that follow the evolution of the LVI willbe discussed and its psychometric properties willbe presented (Chapter Two), administration andinterpretation will be explored (Chapter Three),and uses of the LVI in counseling, therapy, andteam development will be outlined (ChapterFour).

5

2

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIFE VALUES INVENTORY

As noted in Chapter One, the LVI was developedfor use with people who are confronting rolerelated decisions such as choice of a career,leisure or relationships. The development of theLife Values Inventory occurred in several stages,all of which are described in this chapter.

Stage OneDimensionality of Values

The purpose of the initial study was to use thesequential system model (Jackson, 1970), morecommonly known as the rational approach to testconstruction, to develop a values inventory. Inthis approach, items are generated on the basis ofa conceptual framework but are retained on thebasis of their psychometric properties andempirical relationships (Golden, Sawicki &Franzen, 1984; Jackson, 1970).

Item Development

Initially, items for the LVI were developed byexamining the following sources for valuescontent, that is, beliefs that guide behavior:personality, values, and interest inventories;popular self-exploration and career developmentbooks; values clarification exercises; opinions ofcollege students and faculty members, and items

generated by the researchers. An initial pool of190 items was developed.

Each of the 190 items was evaluated by theresearchers according to the following criteria: (1)corresponds to the operational definition ofvalues; (2) reflects the general core of values thatcan be ascribed to an activity or event; (3)redundancy; and (4) clarity. Thirty-nine itemswere deleted as a result of this review leaving apool of 151 items. The remaining items werepresented to graduate level classes in counselingand school psychology, and to practicing careercounselors for review of their clarity. Ten itemswere deleted as a result of the feedback fromthese groups, leaving a total of 141 items.

Scaling

A five point Likert scale with markers for 1, 3,and 5 was used in constructing the first draft ofthe inventory. The markers were: 1=almost neverguides my behavior; 3=occasionally guides mybehavior; 5=almost always guides my behavior.

Sample

The sample used in the initial stage ofdevelopment of the LVI was comprised of 266university students (63.5%) and 153 communitycollege students (36.5%) for a total of 419

6

subjects. The ages of the subjects ranged from 18to 55 years with 78.7% of the sample rangingfrom 18 to 22 years (N=328; M=22.49). Thesample was comprised of 254 females (60.6%)and 159 males (40.0%). Six cases (1.4%) couldnot be classified according to gender due tomissing information. The ethnic distribution ofthe sample was as follows: Caucasian (N=346,82.6%), African American (N=58, 13.8%), NativeAmerican (N=4, 1.0%), Asian Pacific American(N=4, 1.0%), and Hispanic (N=3, 0.7%). Twoindividuals (0.5%) identified themselves as Otherand two cases (0.5%) could not be classified. Allinventories were administered in classroomsettings.

Analyses

To identify the latent dimensions represented bythe original variables of the LVI, a sequence ofprincipal axis factor analyses with promaxrotation was carried out. Scree plot analysis,hyperplane count and examination of the rotatedmatrices were used to estimate the number andnature of latent variables of the LVI. Followingeach analysis, items were removed if theyexhibited a double or low loading, with theloading and correlation criteria being greater than,or approaching .40. Factors with one or twoitems were also eliminated.

Internal consistency was assessed using twomethods. Cronbach's alpha was calculated toexamine the internal consistency of each factor. Asecond estimation of the internal consistency ofthe solution was the squared multiple correlations(SMC) of the factor scores predicted from scoreson the observed variables. High SMC valuesindicate stability of factors in that the observedvariables account for substantial variance in thefactor scores and is thus considered a viableassessment of internal consistency (Bollen, 1989;Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).

Results

Factor structure. A sequence of principal axis factoranalyses was run on the 141 item inventory.Kaiser's measure of overall sample adequacy was.869, deemed meritorious (Kaiser, 1974). Screetests of the eigen values, hyperplane counts, andthe criteria for interpretability all indicated that 10factors with 45 items yielded the best solutionand approached simple structure. The percentageof the total variance accounted for by the 10factor solution was 57.88%.

The highest inter-factor correlation was .393,indicating that the use of the oblique rotationmatrices was indicated for factor interpretation.However, interpretation of the oblique factorpattern was nearly identical to the orthogonalfactor pattern. Six of the factors derived from theanalysis included five items each, while threefactors included four items, and one factor wascomprised of three items, for a total of 45 items.The 10 factors identified listed in descendingorder using amount of variance accounted for asthe basis for the ordering are: FinancialProsperity, Spirituality, Altruism, ScientificInquiry, Affiliation, Order, Solitude, PhysicalExpression, Creativity, and Independence.

Internal consistency. The measures of internalconsistency for the 10 factors derived from theStage One Analyses were generally satisfactory.Cronbach’s alphas for the factors ranged from.643 for Independence to .892 for Spirituality.The values of the SMC's ranged from .714 for theIndependence factor to .916 for the Spiritualityfactor.

Stage TwoTesting the Model

Sample

The revised, 45 item LVI was administered to396 university students (46.8%), 226 technical-community college students (26.7%), and 225

7

corporate employees or trainees ( 26.6%) for atotal of 847 people. The ages of the peopleinvolved in the study ranged from 18 to 67 yearswith a mean age of 24.69 years. The sample wascomprised of 564 females (66.6%) and 265 males(31.3%). Eighteen cases (2.1%) could not beclassified because of missing data. The ethnicdistribution of the sample was as follows:Caucasian (N=624, 73.7%); African American(N=153, 18.1%); Asian Pacific American (N=15,1.8%); Hispanic (N=28, 3.3%); and NativeAmerican (N=11, 1.3%). Eleven individuals(1.3%) identified themselves as others and fivecases (.6%) could not be classified. Because ofmissing values, 21 cases were deleted from thesample and thus the data from 826 cases wereanalyzed.

In order to determine the reliability of the LVI, itwas readministered to 173 university students.Their ages ranged from 18 to 23 years old with amean age of 20.01 years. The sample wascomprised of 113 females (65.3%) and 53 males(30.6%). The gender of seven students (4.1%)could not be classified due to missing data. Theethnic distribution of the group that was retestedis as follows: Caucasian (N=133, 76.9%); AfricanAmerican (N=34, 19.7%); Asian PacificAmerican (N=4, 2.3%); and Native American(N=2, 1.2%). Eleven subjects were deleted fromthe analysis because of missing values in theirresponses. Except for the fact that the samplethat was retested was younger than the largersample (M=20.01 versus 24.69), the retestedsample was quite comparable on othercharacteristics to the total group.

Analyses

In stage two the same data collection proceduresemployed in stage one were followed. In theanalyses, sample means, standard deviation, andranges were calculated for each item of the LVI.Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilizedto test the factor structure of the instrument. Thisstatistical procedure allows the researcher todefine the model to be tested, rather thanallowing the data to determine the model as in

exploratory factor analysis. In stage two a modelwas specified based on the findings of the stageone factor analysis. In the confirmatory factormodel, substantively motivated constraints areemployed to more clearly establish the structuralcharacteristics of measures of hypotheticalconstructs, thus providing a suitable and stringentmodel of goodness of fit (Lennox, Welch, Wolfe,Zimmerman & Dixon, 1987; Long, 1983; Tinsley& Tinsley, 1987). Thus, CFA was used to test thea priori factor structure determined in stage one.Each item was defined with its correspondingfactor and only that factor. Because of the inter-factor correlations reported in stage one, anoblique model was specified. This wasaccomplished by allowing the statisticalprocedure to estimate the covariance betweenfactors. The model was estimated using themaximum likelihood procedure (Joreskog, 1973).A preliminary least-squares estimation of theparameters was used to obtain initial values forthe maximum likelihood estimation.

The CALIS procedure of the SAS statisticalprogramming package (SAS Institute Inc., 1990)was chosen for this analysis for its ease ofprogramming and its provision of a number ofgoodness-of-fit indices. One measure is thestatistic which is used to compare the correlationmatrix estimated by the model with thecorrelation matrix of the actual data. If thedifference between the two matrices isnonsignificant, an appropriate fit is indicated.However, this statistic is inflated by large samplesizes and sometimes renders a significantdifference despite a possibly good fit (Long,1983; Bollen, 1989). Hence, other indices aretypically calculated. Due to the absence ofprevious standards of fit for values constructs, .90served as a guide for testing the efficacy of themodel and evaluating the need for furtherrespecification.

Internal consistency was estimated by utilizingthe same methods in both stages. Test-retestreliability over a two week period was determinedby comparing the summed scores of the scales ofsubjects that completed the LVI during the first

8

and second testing sessions. An intraclassreliability coefficient was calculated using analysisof variance procedures to assess the test-retestreliability of the scales (Haggard, 1958; Kroll,1962; Safrit, 1976).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis. Several goodness of fitanalyses were computed to test the efficacy of themodel, including Chi Square (3109.196, p<.0001,df 900). The values of other goodness of fitanalyses were: (1) .848 for the Goodness of FitIndex, (2) .825 for GFI adjusted for degrees offreedom, (3) .807 for Bentler's ComparativeIndex, (4) .788 for Bentler & Bonett's Non-Normed Index, and (5) .750 for Bentler &Bonnett's Normed Index. While these indicesapproach .90, the overall conclusion reached wasthat the model derived from stage one analysesmight be improved with respecification.

Model respecification. The LVI was reexaminedutilizing exploratory factor analysis as a guide tounderstanding the relationships among the items.Additionally, each item's relationship to themodel as indicated by the amount of sharedvariance between an item and its correspondingfactor was analyzed. A low correlation indicateslittle shared variance between an item and itsfactor, and that the removal of the item couldsubstantially improve the model (Anderson &Gerbing, 1988).

Principal axis factor analysis was conducted onthe remaining 45 items, extracting 10 factors. Allfactors maintained the predicted structure exceptfor Independence, which accounted for the leastamount of variance in the stage one analysis.Examination of the factor loadings indicated thatthe five items included in the Independencefactor failed to form a stable factor. None ofthese items had high loadings on the other factorsor were greater than the items that were specifiedfor that factor in stage one. Hence, these fiveitems were deleted from the model.

Finally, all nine remaining factors had 3-4 itemswith the exception of the Order factor, whichhad five items. In an effort to create proportionaldimensions for the revised version of the LVI,the lowest loading item was deleted. This resultedin nine factors consisting of 31 items in therespecified model with four factors containing 4items per factor and five factors with 3 items.The respecified model is designated as LVI-R forthe purpose of distinguishing between the 31 and45 item instruments.

Principal axis factor analysis was conducted forthe remaining 31 items, extracting 8-10 factorsrespectively. Scree tests of the eigen values,hyperplane counts, and the criterion ofinterpretability all indicated that nine factorsyielded the best solution. Convergence wasreached in 19 iterations. The percentage of totalvariance accounted for by the nine factor solutionwas 64.09%. The highest inter-factor correlationwas .421, indicating the use of the obliquerotation matrices for factor interpretation.However, interpretation of the oblique factorpattern was nearly identical to the orthogonalfactor pattern. The factor structure of LVI-R wasdeemed an appropriate model to be analyzed byCFA. Once again, because there were moderatecorrelations between factors, an oblique modelwas used.

Confirmatory factor analysis, LVI-R. The model asdefined by the a priori factor structure from therespecified LVI-R reached convergence withresultant fit indices. The values of the indices forthe maximum likelihood estimations ranged from.843 for Bentler and Bonett's Normed Index to.900 for the Goodness of Fit Index. The ChiSquare was also significant (8503.911, p<.0001,df 398). This was an improvement over the initialmodel for all goodness of fit indices.

Test-retest reliability. Intraclass correlationscalculated for each factor ranged from a low of.781 for the Solitude factor to a high of .966 forthe Spirituality factor, indicating an acceptablelevel of test-retest reliability for each of the ninefactors.

9

Internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha and SMC's ofthe factor scores were calculated to examine theinternal consistency of each factor of LVI-R. Thevalues of alpha for the factors ranged from a lowof .672 for the Scientific Inquiry factor to a highof .868 for the Spirituality factor. The values ofthe SMC's ranged from a low of .744 for theSolitude factor to a high of .892 for theSpirituality factor. As was the case in stage one,the two measures of internal consistency closelyapproximated each other and the high valuesindicate stability of factors.

Other validity data. Swift (1996) conducted a multi-trait, multi-method validity study of the 45 itemLVI. In one portion of his study, he correlatedfive analogous scales on the LVI (MaterialWealth; Altruism, Social Acceptance, Creativity,and Independence) with analogous scales on theRokeach Values Scale. The analysis yieldedcorrelations ranging from .187 (SocialAcceptance) to .510 (Creativity). Swift alsocorrelated these same scales scores with thescores of five scales from the Values Scale (1986).Unlike Rokeach’s scales, which consist of oneitem, the scales on the VS are made up of fiveitems and thus provide the potential for muchmore variability. The resulting correlationsbetween analogous scales, which were composedof the four items that loaded best on the factor,ranged from .357 (Independence) to .624(Material Rewards).

Stage ThreeRevision & Pilot Testing

Reading Level & Cultural Sensitivity

At the end of stage two it was concluded that,while the LVI-R represented an approximation ofa scale that could be used to help people makedecisions, the failure to obtain two importantEurocentric values, Independence andAchievement, represented a major shortcoming.Moreover, when the values on the LVI-R werecompared to those identified in the multicultural

literature (e.g. Carter, 1991; Kluckhorn &Strodtbeck, 1961; Sue & Sue, 1990), somesignificant omissions were obvious. At this pointseveral developmental efforts were undertaken.First, using word lists and reading experts, thereading level of the LVI was reduced toapproximately the sixth grade level. This effortresulted in alterations in every aspect of the LVI-R, including the directions, item wording, andscale names. Lists of synonyms were used inrewording the items in an attempt to ensure thatnew items approximated the item they replaced.Second, the authors rewrote items on theIndependence scale and reconstructedAchievement and Independence Scales basedpartially on the first two series of analyses. Third,the number of items per scale was increased tofive, some of which were drawn from the earlierversions of the LVI based on factor analyticresults (i.e., correlations with factors), and someof which were newly written. Fourth, LVI-R wassubmitted to a small panel of multiculturalreviewers (Asian American female, AfricanAmerican male, Native American female) fortheir reactions. They suggested that Loyalty toFamily or Group be added to the inventory.Accordingly, five items were developed tomeasure this value.

The newly revised LVI, which consisted of 12scales, was submitted to a second panel ofreviewers consisting of one Cuban Americanfemale, one Mexican American female, one AsianAmerican female, one African American male,one Caucasian female, and two Native Americans(one male and one female) who were familiarboth with values research and the values of theircultural groups. The reviewers were asked tocritique the instrument in terms of its sensitivityto cultural issues (i.e. objectionable material),cultural appropriateness (i.e. words and conceptsused are appropriate for all cultural groups),comprehensiveness (i.e. all major values held byall cultural groups are included), and clarity. Onthe basis of the second multicultural review,several changes were made in the wording ofitems, and three scales consisting of five itemseach were added to the LVI-12. These were

10

labeled Humility, Responsibility, and Concern forthe Environment.

Pilot Testing LVI-15

Because of the number and magnitude ofchanges to LVI-R it was determined that therevised scale should be pilot tested prior tovalidation. LVI-15 was administered to 237community college students, undergraduatesattending four year colleges, graduate students,and a few retirees. The pilot sample ranged in agefrom 17 to 77 with a mean age of 26.763. Twoindividuals (.8%) had not completed high school,14 (5.9%) had completed high school, 126(53.25%) had completed some college but hadnot earned a degree, 73 (8.0%) had earned anassociates degree or vocational-technical collegecertificate, 65 (27.4%) had earned a Bachelorsdegree or higher, and 2 (.8%) provided no dataabout their educational achievement. Onehundred fifty-five (65.4%) of the peopleparticipating in the pilot were female and 82(34.6%) were male. Forty-one (17.3%) of theparticipants were African American, three (1.3%)were Native American, two (.8%) were AsianAmericans, four (1.7%) were Hispanics, 173(73.0%) were Caucasian, 10 (4.2%) classifiedthemselves as other, and four (1.7%) could not beclassified because of missing values. The SPSSprogram used in the analysis tests sampleadequacy using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measureof Sample Adequacy which yielded a coefficientof .837, deemed meritorious (Kaiser, 1974).

Results

Factor structure. Two hundred thirty-seven usableresponses to LVI-15 were factor analyzed usingprincipal axis analysis with an oblique rotationbecause of moderate correlations among factors.Solutions for 10 through 15 factors wereextracted. The 14 factor solution, which tookmore than 50 iterations, offered the best solutionbased on the scree plot analysis of eigen valuesand observation. Using item factor correlationaldata as the basis for decisions, three items perscale were selected for inclusion in the LVI, and

the results were reanalyzed using the sameprocedures. Once again, the fourteen factorsolution proved to be the most satisfactorysolution in this analysis. The fourteen factors andthe item loadings associated with them are shownin Appendix B.

The factor analysis of the pilot data supported theearlier statistical and conceptual work on theinstrument, with one exception. The Order factorwas replaced in the analysis of the pilot data by amore general factor which was labeledResponsibility. The factor correlation matrix canbe found in Appendix B.

Internal consistency. Cronbach's alphas were alsocomputed for each three item scale. Cronbach'salphas were computed for each factor. Theseranged from .626 for the Independence scale to.897 for the Spirituality scale, which indicatesfactor stability is well within an acceptable range.The total variance accounted for by the 14 factorsolution with three items per scale was 75.28%.

Stage FourValidation of LVI-14

In order to establish the construct validity of theLVI, it was decided that the scores of hevalidation sample would be compared to thescores on two established scales, the RokeachValues Survey (Rokeach, 1973) and the VocationalPreference Inventory, Form B (Holland, 1985) usingPearson Product Moment correlations.Additionally, the adult sample completed wasasked to complete the Crown-Marlowe SocialDesirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Theorder of administration of the instruments wascounterbalanced in both the adult and the highschool samples. All subjects were paid $5.00 fortheir participation in the study. People in theadult sample who completed all instruments werealso eligible for a prize of $25.00. The winners ofthese prizes, which were made available to eachof the subsamples in the adult sample, were

11

determined by a drawing at the conclusion of thedata collection for each subgroup.

Validation Samples

Validity data were collected from two samples:334 high school students from a large (1500+)comprehensive high school in Raleigh, NC and342 adults from California, Minnesota,Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, and NorthCarolina. The data for the high school samplewere collected in classroom settings afterinformed consent was obtained from bothstudents and their parents. The classes used in theresearch were selected because they wererepresentative of the entire student body of theschool at the time the research was conducted.The characteristics of both samples can be seenin Appendix C.

Construct Validity

Tests for sampling adequacy and principal axisextraction for a 14 factor solution was conductedto examine the 14 scale model of the revised LVI.Results from the study are reported separately forthe adult and high school samples.

Factor structure, adults. Listwise deletion of casesresulted in 326 valid cases to be analyzed. Sampleadequacy was examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olin Measure of Sampling Adequacy whichyielded a coefficient of .7824, deemed middling(Kaiser, 1974). Principal axis extraction resultedin a 14 factor solution that reached convergencein 27 iterations and accounted for 73.2% of thevariance. The highest inter-factor correlation was-.42, indicating the use of oblique rotationmatrices for factor interpretation. A stable factorstructure resulted that supported the predicted 14scale model. One problematic item emerged fromthe Independence scale (#33, Having controlover my time) which had significant cross-loadings on other factors (Privacy andResponsibility) and did not load highly on theIndependence scale. Appendix D presents a listof the 42 items and the standard regressioncoefficients from the oblique rotated factor

pattern matrix. Appendix E presents the inter-factor correlations.

Factor structure, high school. Listwise deletion ofcases resulted in 316 valid cases to be analyzed.Sample adequacy was examined using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olin Measure of Sampling Adequacywhich yielded a coefficient of .82342, deemedmeritorious (Kaiser, 1974). Principal axisextraction resulted in a 14 factor solution thatreached convergence in 29 iterations andaccounted for 72.2% of the variance. The highestinter-factor correlation was .38, indicating the useof oblique rotation matrices for factorinterpretation. A stable factor structure resultedthat supported the predicted 14 scale model, withone exception. The Independence scale proved tobe unstable with each item cross-loading on atleast one other scale. Appendix D presents a listof the 42 items and the standard regressioncoefficients from the oblique rotated factorpattern matrix. Appendix E presents the inter-factor correlations.

Summary of factor structure. The factor structure ofthe LVI has proven to be stable, a claim thatcannot be made by any of the extant inventories.The LVI-9, the immediate predecessor of LVI-14, has been factor analyzed in three differentdissertation studies (Crace, 1992; Flannelly, 1995;Swift, 1996) and each time the nine factorsolution was shown to be the most satisfactorysolution so long as the original items were used.Flannelly and Swift used some redrafted itemspertaining to the Independence scale and both oftheir analyses yielded identical 10 factor solutions.The factor structure of LVI-14 was replicatedtwice (in the adult and high school analyses) andwas shown to be the best solution in both cases.These studies attest to the construct validity ofthe LVI. Replication has also indicated the needfor further work to stabilize the Independencescale. By contrast, three factor analyses of theValues Scale (Nevill & Super, 1989) yielded threedifferent solutions. Factor analytic studies of theRokeach Values Survey by Braithewaite and Law(1985) yielded a 14 factor solution, whereasRokeach’s (1973) own research had earlier

12

produced a seven factor solution. Moreover, theamount of variance accounted for in the factoranalytic studies of the LVI exceeds that found instudies of other prominent instruments. Resultsalso indicate the LVI includes scales that arerelatively independent. For example, the highestinterscale correlation on the LVI for adults is -.42with only four interscale correlations exceeding.30. By contrast 31 of the VS scaleintercorrelations are at or above .50.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was assessed by correlatingLVI scale scores with items from the RokeachValues Survey (RVS) using Pearson ProductMoment correlations. A rating scale version ofthe RVS was used due to the difficulty ofstatistical analyses with the original ipsativeranking version (Thompson, Leveitove, andMiederhoff, 1982). The RVS was chosen becauseit has been widely researched and is arguably themost respected and broadly used values inventoryavailable. Thirty predictions were made regardingthe relationships between the LVI and RVS scalesfor both the high school and adult samples,respectively. Of these predictions, 27 of thecorrelations were significant for adults and in theexpected direction. In the case of the predictionsthat were not supported (Belonging, Creativity,and Independence), other correlations withanalogous scales on the RVS were supportive oftheir convergent validity. Twenty-four of thepredictions for the high school sample weresupported. Some of the expected differences notsupported, such as the one between Freedom andIndependence, may be because they are nothighly crystallized values for high school students.Data for the high school and adult samples arepresented separately in Appendix F.

While the correlations were significant it washoped they would have been higher than thosethat resulted. However, subsequent analyses ofthe RVS responses indicated a strong positiveresponse bias for both samples. Responses thatare strongly skewed lowers variability and,consequently, the size of resulting correlation

coefficients. The impact of the positive responsebias for the RVS can be seen in Swift’s (1996)results. Correlations between Prosperity, Concernfor Others, Belonging, Creativity, andIndependence with five analogous scales on boththe RVS and VS yielded correlations rangingfrom .217 to .513 (M=.406) for the RVS andfrom .386 to .664 for the VS (M=.526). Whilethese results may be attributable to other factors,the most plausible explanation lies in the skewednature of the RVS responses.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was assessed from the adultsample by correlating LVI scale scores with theCrowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. It waspredicted that the impact of the social desirabilityresponse set would be minimal resulting in lowcorrelations. Appendix G presents thecorrelations between scores on the LVI and theCrowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale.Correlations ranged from -.035 to .277. While 11correlations were statistically significant at the .05level, the small size of the correlations suggeststhat the impact of the social desirability responseset is minimal, accounting for a small amount ofthe variance in LVI scores. For example, thehighest correlation of .277 accounts for only7.6% of the variance in the Concern for Othersscale.

Reliability

Internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was used toassess the internal consistency of the LVI scalesfor both adult and high school samples.Coefficients for adults ranged from .55 on theIndependence scale to .88 on the Spiritualityscale. Coefficients for high school studentsranged from .51 on the Independence scale to .81on the Concern for the Environment scale. Tenof the coefficients for the adult sample exceeded.70 and 12 of the coefficients for the high schoolsample were at .70 or above, demonstratingadequate internal consistency for both samples.Appendix H presents the coefficients on all scalesfor both samples.

13

Stability. Temporal stability of LVI scales wereexamined with test-retest reliability coefficientsfrom subsamples of 72 adults and 51 high schoolstudents respectively. The retest coefficients onall scales for both samples were significant atp<.0001 over an interval of about 18 days (adultmean interval in days=18.9, SD=6.0; high schoolmean interval in days=18.02; SD=.24). Retestcoefficients for adults ranged from .57 on theConcern for Others scale to .90 on theSpirituality scale. Coefficients for high schoolstudents ranged from .49 on the Privacy scale to.75 on the Belonging scale. Appendix H presentsthe coefficients on all scales for both samples.

A pilot study of 25 university students examinedthe test-retest reliability of the ranking section ofthe LVI. Time frame between assessments wasthree months. Most students indicated this was atransitional period in their lives reflecting astringent test of the dynamic nature of valuesduring transition. 96% of the students rankedtheir top value as first, second, or third on theretest. 88% ranked their top value as first orsecond on the retest. 88% of two out of threehighest ranked values were listed in the top threevalues on the retest. 84% of the top three rankedvalues were listed in the top five values on theretest. 76% of four out of five top ranked valueswere listed in the top five values on the retest.

Exploratory Analyses

Relating the LVI to Behavior

One of the most difficult forms of validity toestablish in personality measurements is criterion-related validity. The most notable attempt atestablishing criterion-related validity with valueswas by Rokeach where he examined therelationship between values scales on the RVSand such behavior as organizational, political, andreligious involvement; honest behavior;interpersonal conflict; behavior in the counselingsituation; academic pursuits; life style andoccupational choices (Rokeach, 1973). An initial

attempt was made at examining the criterion-related validity of the LVI by developing aBehavioral Rating Scale.

When completing the LVI, individuals wereasked to indicate whether the 42 beliefs containedin the items guide their behavior (See AppendixA). In order to get an estimate of whether resultson the LVI do in fact correspond to observedbehaviors, subjects in the adult validation subjectwere asked to identify a person who knows themwell, and send them a Behavioral Rating Scale(BRS; Appendix I) that was designed to assessbehaviors associated with the values on the LVI.

Development of BRS. It was determined that allitems on the BRS should reflect observablebehavior that could be manifested by people ofall ages. The first step in identifying thesebehaviors was to ask 18 graduate students incounseling and school psychology and 10psychologists in a university counseling center toidentify the likely behavioral manifestations of thefourteen values measured by the LVI. Theirsuggestions were screened by the researchers and56 statements (four per value) were selected forinclusion on the BRS. Six staff psychologist fromNational Computer Systems rated each of the 56statements regarding the extent to which theybelieved the statement represented a behaviorthat would be manifested by a person holding thevalue in question. The scale used was as follows:1=poor; 2=not bad; 3=okay/adequate; 4=good;5=excellent/prototypic. The staff psychologistswere also asked to identify behaviors that theybelieved would be manifested by individualsholding each of the values measured by the LVIand to replace those they felt were not indicativeof the behavioral domain related to the value.Items rated with average ratings of 3.5 by thepanel were retained, sometimes with minorediting, with two exceptions. One highly rateditem was replaced because one judge noted that itwas quite similar to another item. Another highlyrated item was deleted because it was decidedthat people of all ages might not be able toengage in the activity described in the item. Theresult of this procedure was a pool of 37

14

acceptable items. The additional 19 items on BRSwere rewritten items and suggestions from theexpert panels, and suggestions from the authorsof the LVI.

In order to get BRS ratings, each person in theadult sample was asked to (1) identify a personwho knows them well, (2) address an envelope tothat person, and (3) place the BRS, an informedconsent form, a stamped, self-addressedenvelope, and a letter explaining the purpose ofthe research into the envelope. The researchersmailed the envelopes that were prepared byindividuals participating in the study. A total of124 people returned the BRS.

Results. Correlations between the LVI and BRSscales are presented in Appendix I. Eight of thecorrelations between the BRS and analogous LVIscales were statistically significant (p<.05).Another correlation (Prosperity; r=.17; p<.057)approached significance. It should be noted thatanalyses of skewness for both the LVI and theBRS revealed positive skew in the ratings andthus restricted the variability of the response.This undoubtedly lowered the size of thecorrelations and precluded the correlation forProsperity from reaching significance. However,it is noteworthy that eight of the scales on theLVI did demonstrate some form of criterionvalidity. It is the first values instrument todemonstrate a relationship between theconstructs measured and the observations ofpeople who knew the subjects well. It should alsobe noted that future efforts will need to focus onimproving the methodology, perhaps byestablishing the type of behaviors manifested bypeople holding various values measured by theLVI through interviews or by collectingobservational data.

Also, some of the correlations between scales onthe LVI and BRS may not have reachedsignificance because the behaviors being ratedmay be subtle, and thus are hard to identify andrate (e.g., those behaviors related to humility). Itmay be the case that, because the sample wasrelatively young, they manifest different value-

related behaviors than do non-students and olderadults and, thus, the behaviors placed on the BRSwere inappropriate.

Career Profiling: Correlating the LVIwith Holland’s Types

During the validation study of the LVI, subjectsin both samples were asked to complete theVocational Preference Inventory (Holland, 1985)to get a preliminary indication of the relationshipbetween values and other popular career profilingsystems such as Holland’s RIASEC themes. Anattempt to predict the values Holland (1985)suggests are associated with his pure types metwith limited success. A total of 13 predictionswere made about the relationships between thevalues on the LVI and the types as measured bythe VPI, form B. Six of the predictions wereaccurate. Three of the misses were regarding theBelonging scale on the LVI as it relates to theRealistic (- prediction), Social (+ prediction), andConventional (+ prediction) scales. Belongingseems to be more related to seeking socialrecognition and friendship than it is toconformity, which was what it was presumed tomeasure.

Positive links between Concern for Others andSocial types, Scientific Understanding andInvestigative and Realistic types, and Creativityand Artistic types were found. The expectednegative relationship between Independence andConventional type was also found. However, theexpected linkages between Prosperity andEnterprising type, and Achievement andEnterprising type were not realized. Futureresearch should perhaps focus on Holland’ssubtypes, not the pure hypothetical types that dono exist in the real world.

15

Life Values Inventory (2002)

Revisions to LVI (1996)

Since the release of the LVI, we have receivedcontinual feedback from counselors andconsultants who have used the LVI in individualand group modalities with diverse populations.While the feedback has been consistentlypositive, we have attempted to incorporatesuggestions that have been offered as a way ofimproving the utility of the LVI for counseling orconsulting purposes. Revisions to the LVI weremade while trying to maintain the empiricalvalidity of the 14 scales.

The rating scale was slightly changed to improvethe disbursement of ratings. Counselors havenoted the reactivity of some individuals to thewords “almost never” and “almost always”.These phrases were replaced with “seldom” and“frequently.” Additional information wasprovided in the instructions to clarify how toappropriately respond to the values items.

Two values scales were renamed to moreadequately reflect the intent of each scale. Thesewere scales that typically required furtherexplanation by counselors and carried unintendedconnotations by users. Loyalty to Family orGroup was changed to Interdependence.Scientific Understanding was changed toObjective Analysis.

The earlier factor structure of Objective Analysiswas reflective of a values scale that measured thereliance on logic, analysis, and objective facts tomake decisions and solve problems. The use ofthe top three loading items has presentedconfusion among many respondents because theyimply an interest in science rather than a value forobjective analysis. This scale was modified usingitems that originally loaded on this factor and thatmore clearly reflect values.

Formatting of the sections was revised toimprove parsimony and utility of the valuesclarification process. The rating and rankingsections were more clearly integrated. The open-ended, qualitative section was removed. Whilethese questions were helpful for discussion, theytended to disrupt the flow of moving from therating to ranking of values. The life role sectionfocuses primarily on three major life roles: work,important relationships, and leisure. The studentrole is integrated with the Work role as mostvalues reflected in one’s academic preparation aresimilar to values desired in one’s work role. Afinal section was added to assist individuals inapplying their results to career/life roledevelopment, transition, and stress management.

See Appendix A for the revised Life ValuesInventory. While every effort has been made tomaintain or improve the integrity of the 14 valuesscales, any change to a psychological inventorymay impact its psychometric properties. Furtherempirical research is warranted to examine thevalidity and reliability of the revised LVI.