Upload
phamtuyen
View
218
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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:
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 3
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).
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 4
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?
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 5
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 6
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 7
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.
Commented [10]: Is this good?
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 8
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 9
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?
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 10
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?
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 11
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 12
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 13
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 14
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 15
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 16
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.
Commented [20]: Is this good?
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 17
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 18
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 19
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 20
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 21
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 22
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 23
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**
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 24
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),
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 25
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 26
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 27
(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]
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 28
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 &
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 29
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 30
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,
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 31
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 32
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 33
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 34
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 35
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 36
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 37
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 38
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 39
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 40
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 41
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 42
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 43
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 44
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 45
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 46
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 47
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 48
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:
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 49
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 50
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 51
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 52
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
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 53
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.
CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE CHARACTER GROWTH INDEX 54
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.