Dataset Information

Development and Validation of the State Moral Elevation Scale: Assessing State-Level Elevation Across Nonclinical and Clinical Samples.

ABSTRACT: Research on moral elevation has steadily increased and identified several psychosocial benefits that bear relevance to both the general population and people with psychological distress. However, elevation measurement is inconsistent, and few state-level measures have been created and critically evaluated to date. To address this gap, the State Moral Elevation Scale (SMES) was developed and tested using an online sample (N = 930) including subsamples of general participants (nonclinical) and those who screened positive for mental health symptoms (clinical). Factor analysis indicated a single factor structure with nine items that demonstrated excellent reliability. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit statistics and strict measurement invariance across clinical and nonclinical subsamples. Lastly, correlational analyses with related constructs provided evidence of construct validity for both subsamples. Thus, the SMES is a psychometrically valid and reliable assessment tool for state-level elevation which can be used in both general and clinical populations.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10902-022-00533-2.

SUBMITTER: McGuire AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9022734 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Validation of the State Moral Elevation Scale: Assessing State-Level Elevation Across Nonclinical and Clinical Samples.

McGuire Adam P AP Hayden Candice L CL Tomoum Rawda R Kurz A Solomon AS

Journal of happiness studies 20220421 6

Research on moral elevation has steadily increased and identified several psychosocial benefits that bear relevance to both the general population and people with psychological distress. However, elevation measurement is inconsistent, and few state-level measures have been created and critically evaluated to date. To address this gap, the State Moral Elevation Scale (SMES) was developed and tested using an online sample (<i>N</i> = 930) including subsamples of general participants (nonclinical) ...[more]

PMID: 35474850

Similar Datasets

Project description:Potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) entail acts of commission (e.g., cruelty, proscribed or prescribed violence) or omission (e.g., high stakes failure to protect others) and bearing witness (e.g., to grave inhumanity, to the gruesome aftermath of violence), or being the victim of others' acts of commission (e.g., high stakes trust violations) or omission (e.g., being the victim of grave individual or systemic failures to protect) that transgress deeply held beliefs and expectations about right and wrong. Although there is a proliferation of interest in moral injury (the outcome associated with exposure to PMIEs), there has been no operational definition of the putative syndrome and no standard assessment scheme or measure, which has hampered research and care in this area. We describe an international effort to define the syndrome of moral injury and develop and validate the Moral Injury Outcome Scale (MIOS) in three stages. To ensure content validity, in Stage I, we conducted interviews with service members, Veterans, and clinicians/Chaplains in each country, inquiring about the lasting impact of PMIEs. Qualitative analysis yielded six operational definitions of domains of impact of PMIEs and components within domains that establish the parameters of the moral injury syndrome. From the domain definitions, we derived an initial pool of scale items. Stage II entailed scale refinement using factor analytic methods, cross-national invariance testing, and internal consistency reliability analyses of an initial 34-item MIOS. A 14-item MIOS was invariant and reliable across countries and had two factors: Shame-Related (SR) and Trust-Violation-Related (TVR) Outcomes. In Stage III, MIOS total and subscale scores had strong convergent validity, and PMIE-endorsers had substantially higher MIOS scores vs. non-endorsers. We discuss and contextualize the results and describe research that is needed to substantiate these inaugural findings to further explore the validity of the MIOS and moral injury, in particular to examine discriminant and incremental validity.

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

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of the State Moral Elevation Scale: Assessing State-Level Elevation Across Nonclinical and Clinical Samples.

Supplementary information

Publications

Development and Validation of the State Moral Elevation Scale: Assessing State-Level Elevation Across Nonclinical and Clinical Samples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets