What was learned from this study of CVI? What is its significance? What conclusion can be drawn? What further research is needed? Most importantly, what is its answer to the research question: Can a valid, reliable measure of multi-dimensional adolescent character be developed? These questions will be answered by interpreting CVI reliability, trait means, exploratory factor analysis, and conceptual correlations, the VIA post hoc study, and CVI’s convergent validity due to correlations with the VIA Youth Survey, and the post hoc study of the combined items. Discussion, conclusions, limitations and future research will be offered.
Is CVI Valid and Reliable?
Reliability. CVI 1 and 2 were both strongly reliable as determined by
Cronbach’s alpha. This removed much of the suspense behind the question, Will CVI 3 prove reliable? It was believed that CVI 3’s alpha would exceed its predecessors’ and it did not disappoint at .944. This would be a strong alpha for a personality test and is robust for a new multidimensional character measure (Heppner & Heppner, 2004;
Diener, Inglehart, & Tay, 2012).
CVI stability had never been measured and thus was unknown. Retests generally are conducted in two to three weeks (Heppner & Heppner, 2004). Those testing
adolescents should follow this timeline due to their subjects’ developmental variability (Brener, Billy, & Grady, 2002; Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000).
Scheduling conflicts caused the retest to occur nine weeks after the initial test. Despite this, test-retest reliability was acceptable at .72. These two tests define CVI as a reliable measure.
Trait means. One way of determining construct and convergent validity is to compare CVI trait means to norms established through national or international character testing using previously validated measures (Clark & Watson, 1995; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) if such norms had been established. They have not.
Park and Peterson’s (2006b; 2007) studies of the VIA-YS provides some standard of adolescent character strength means. Although an ordinal measure, VIA-YS was used by its authors to establish means of trait subscales reported by adolescents. By placing trait means in rank order, the two can be compared.
The rank order of CVI scores as illustrated in Table 3.3 is similar to means found in Park and Peterson’s studies for these traits. Kindness and Love have the highest means and Self-Control (similar to CVI’s Peace) and Spirituality are the lowest (Park &
Peterson, 2006b, 2007; Peterson & Park, 2009; Steen, Kachorek, & Peterson, 2003).
CVI’s rank order of scores indicates its construct and convergent reliability.
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Does this metric support CVI construct, convergent, and discriminant validity? EFA should show easily-interpretable factors with adequate Eigenvalues (= show how much of the measure’s variance is explained by each factor) that align with the 11 hypothesized CVI traits, have good structural
coefficient alphas with numerous items intended to measure the trait with which they factor, and few items that are rejected due to double-factoring or failing to factor.
Factoring. CVI produced 11 easily interpretable factors with good Eigenvalues.
Most significantly, all eleven interpreted as the 11 hypothesized CVI traits. Ten of the eleven factors achieved the desired structural coefficient alphas and the eleventh (F10 Honesty) was very close at .684.
This indicates the extensive review of expert opinion conducted after CVI 2 and the subsequent item revisions and new items created were well-conceived and effective.
Six of the factors showed strong coefficient alpha levels (Heppner & Heppner, 2004;
Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006; Standards, 1985). Seven factors (F1-F6, F8) included all five designed items and two others included four of five. CVI shows good factoring and structural coefficients (Clark & Watson, 1995; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Cronbach
& Meehl, 1955; Kenny & Kashy, 1992).
Factor interpretation. How interpretable are the 11 factors? Each one is
discussed in logical (not numerical) order and its name and definition is confirmed or adjusted.
Factor 1. Kindness was the strongest factor, in part because it drew a sixth item that was designed to measure Courage: Q42 “When someone is in danger, I do something to help them.” This item’s coefficient alpha was higher than two Kindness items (Q5 “I stand up for people if others are being mean to them” and Q51 “I help those in need and do nice things for them”). Further discussion is in the “Factor 7” section below.
CVI items designed to measure Kindness all focus on social settings where one has an opportunity to help another who is in need. While this certainly defines acts of Kindness, 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). To focus on kindness as action or behavior, this trait could be renamed Benevolence, Acts of Kindness, or Goodwill (Merriam-Webster, 1998). These terms are long and/or less commonly used by adolescents. It can be argued that character is primarily attitude in action and thus Kindness is the appropriate term. Though CVI F9 represents kind acts, Kindness will continue to be its title in this study. To reflect Kindness’ attitudinal aspect, the definition was adapted to, “Charitable, compassionate, and protective consideration and treatment of others” (added wording in italic).
Factor 7. Courage items were based on expert opinion (Biswas-Diener, 2012;
Davidson & Lickona, 2009; Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, & Sternberg, 2007; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004; Samuelson, 2007; Snyder & Lopez, 2009) that defined Courage as brave, noble, and reasoned choices to act despite danger. Three Courage items were designed to reflect this definition in both CVI 1 and 2. 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 CVI 3 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 from CVI 1 where a Courage item factored strongly with Kindness. The item (Q5) was retained in CVI 2 to measure Kindness instead of Courage.
This also repeats an effect from CVI 2 that was overlooked when constructing CVI 3. The former used three items to measure Courage. Two factored and were used in CVI 3: Q9 = “I have courage when I face danger” and Q20 = “When in a crisis, I think clearly and take action but don’t get scared.” The third item did not factor: Q48 = “I stand up for what is good and right, even if it isn't popular with others.” Interpreting this result in light of the three CVI iterations’ EFA reveals that Q48’s mention of “others”
may have inhibited factoring.
Kindness and Courage are distinct as defined by EFA of CVI’s three iterations.
Kindness is “charitable, compassionate, and protective consideration and treatment of others.” Courage is “brave, reasoned choices to act despite danger.” After these
refinements in definition and interpretations, Kindness conceptually could be thought of as an aspect of moral character and Courage an aspect of performance character (Biswas-Diener, 2012; Davidson & Lickona, 2009; Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, & Sternberg, 2007).
This may be helpful in discriminating between the two strengths (see discussion below under “VIA data” and “Exploratory Factor Analysis”).
CVI 3’s factoring reveals noble action as an aspect of Kindness but not Courage.
The words “…and noble…” were deleted from Courage’s definition. F7 is properly labeled Courage.
Factors 2 - 5. Spirituality, Perseverance, Forgiveness, and Optimism all factored with only their five predicted items and their reliability alpha were strong. They all appear to be properly titled and defined.
Spirituality factored with only three items in the original CVI so attaining the second-strongest factor with five items is not surprising. Of its two new items, Q1 (“My spirituality influences my values and beliefs”) had the factor’s lowest correlation and Q8 (“I am a person of faith or a spiritual person”) had its second-highest. Both add
discriminant validity and definition to the trait.
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”). The definition of Spirituality cited by authors of the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (Underwood & Teresi, 2002) was,
“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 comprise approximately 2% of the US population and agnostics about 4% (AP/IPSOS, 2005). In education, they are a vocal minority and caused some educators who considered participating in this study to decline due to the inclusion of a scale of Spirituality.
CVI Spirituality’s definition and items are intended to measure the trait
universally despite one’s religion and beliefs or lack of these. Spirituality is universal (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and all cultures embrace “…an ultimate, transcendent, sacred, and divine force… [that] helps people to grapple with core existential concerns…
and rules and values” (p. 601).
While psychological science must be sensitive to ideological and religious concerns, empiricism demands objectivity. CVI is intended to measure character
strengths and Spirituality was determined by multiple sources in the Character Taxonomy to be one such strength. CVI’s EFA validated this as Spirituality is the second strongest factor. Discussion of this factor should continue toward consensus in the field.
Though F3 Perseverance factored well, two items’ alpha scores show the power of exploratory factor analysis either to expose conceptual weaknesses or offer
discriminant validity. Coefficient alphas for Q40 (“I am responsible and dependable”) and Q44 (“I keep trying until I succeed, even after a delay or roadblock”) were acceptable but nowhere close to those achieved by the other three Perseverance items that mentioned finishing a difficult task.
Q40 and Q44’s alphas could improve if they read, “I am responsible to finish a task I begin” and “I keep trying until I finish a task, even after a delay or roadblock”
(changed wording in italic). Conversely it could be argued that 1) leaving Q40 and Q44 as they are contributes to CVI’s discriminant validity and 2) changing these items as suggested would identify this factor as “task completion” rather than Perseverance (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995; Heppner & Heppner, 2004). The items will thus be
retained as they are to add discriminant validity and the factor retains its name and definition.
F4 Forgiveness had some difficulty factoring in CVI 1 and 2 with coefficient alphas just below or just above criteria. In CVI 3, the trait items showed good conceptual cohesion with a strong structure coefficient. F5 Optimism performed similarly with strong item and overall alphas. Both retain their names and definitions.
Factor 8. Peace is CVI’s unique factor, defined as “calmness despite agitation and stress.” The two stronger items (Q28 “I can deal with negative, angry people” and Q48 “I am patient and remain calm, even when others try to make me mad”) mention others’ anger. The three remaining items (Q14, Q30, and Q45) weaken the factor’s stability as shown in their lower structure coefficients. In contrast, they strengthen its discriminant validity by describing stressful situations rather than people. This
discrepancy informs conceptualization. Because the weaker three have alphas >.4, they should be retained. Thus F8 Peace measures the trait during distress caused both by personal encounters and impersonal situations. As this is already reflected in CVI’s definition of Peace, no change is necessary (See Table 4.1 below; Haynes, Richard, &
Kubany, 1995; Heppner & Heppner, 2004).
The VIA-YS character strength with which it most closely correlates is Self-Control. While both deal with self-regulation, the VIA measure is perhaps broader since two of its items regard patience. However one of those did not factor with Self-Control and the factor’s cohesion was insufficient. The title Peace is best for F8.
Factor 9. Four of Love’s five intended items factored well but Q55 (“I am loyal to those who are close to me”) just missed. It is suggested that a wording change could strengthen Q55’s alpha: “I am loyal to my friends and family who are close to me”
(changed wording in italic). Q47’s alpha (“When I find a friend I enjoy and can trust, we become close”) might be strengthened by a similar change to, “I am close to friends and family whom I enjoy and trust.” These minor wording changes should not alter CVI factoring, could increase coefficient alphas, and strengthen content and construct validity.
The appropriateness of F9 to be titled Love was questioned. The concept of Love is broad and difficult to define comprehensively as a character trait. The same expert who questioned Spirituality’s qualifications to be a virtue (“a disposition to act in a certain way”) regarded the Love items similarly. He believed they did not measure a virtue in the same way as the Honesty, Kindness, and Courage items.
Peterson & Seligman (2004) state that love is relational and reciprocal as well as dispositional and behavioral. Its chapter on Love is authored by Cindy Hazen who with Phillip Shaver extended Bowlby’s attachment theory to adult romantic relationships.
This is reflected in her “consensual definition” of love as a “…stance toward others…” of three types that echo Freudian categories of child-parent, parent-child, and romantic (p.
304). This seems to correlate with Positive Youth Development’s Internal Assets of Interpersonal Competence and Care (Lerner et al., 2005).
CVI Love should be compared to a broader spectrum of experts and its concept revisited. A true “consensual definition” from those who focus on Love as a virtue may then be determined.