Having guidelines or baselines to review any survey instruments is essential. Such guidelines play a crucial role in (1) evaluating the different theoretical framework employed and procedure of the scale development and (2) testing for psychometric property. To address the goals of this paper, the following section discuss a set of guidelines for scale development and then a process and decision of identifying a strong theoretical framework.
Guidelines for Scale Development
a set of clear criteria on scale development to be used in the evaluation. Many recommendations about scale development include similar processes. Generally speaking, scale development involves eight steps: (1) identify theoretical framework, (2) develop item pool, (3) determine measurement format, (4) invite expert review, (5) conduct cognitive interview, (6) administer survey, (7)
evaluate the items, and (8) refine items and modify scale length (Carpenter, 2018; DeVellis, 2003; Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011). The first and foremost step is to identify a clear theory that underlies the development of the scale. Next, the researcher should operationalize the constructs (or identifying dimensions) of the concept, which clarifies the elements that the researcher intends to measure. With clearly operationalized constructs, an item pool is generated that is
representative of each construct and a suitable measurement format is determined (e.g., Likert type scale) to capture participants’ perceptions and their opinions. The best measurement format
depends on the researcher’s purposes and item wording. Therefore, determining the measurement format often is simultaneously with item pool development.
Once the initial items have been developed, individuals with expertise in the underlying theory should be invited to review the items to provide feedback on the connection between the operationalized constructs and the items. Based on this expert review, the items are revised and then individuals who are part of the target population are asked to respond to the survey and cognitive interviews are conducted with these respondents. The goal of the cognitive interview is to determine whether any items are ambiguous or challenging to understand and then to remove ambiguity and challenging wording on the questionnaire (Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011). This process is crucial as it is designed to capture the perceptions of the target population and their understanding of the questions. After items are refined, one can then conduct the survey on a larger scale and conduct factor analysis to understand the factor structure. The final step is further
modification of the survey instrument based on the result of factor analysis and clarifying how the findings connect with the theoretical framework. Estimates of internal consistency help the
researcher understand the degree to which items underlying the same construct are measuring similar ideas.
Different Conceptions of Care
To address the first goal of analyzing different theories of care and identifying a strong, clear, and concise conception of care, it is necessary to begin by reviewing other established definitions of care. Velasquez et al.'s (2013) review of literature found that Nel Noddings’ (1984) conception of care is widely used in studies investigating pedagogies of care. Furthermore, from my research on definitions of care, surprisingly, very few scholars have thoroughly discussed,
identified, and defined the elements of care. While searching for the definition of care, three
definitions were identified in the literature. More specifically, Milton Mayeroff (1971), Carol Gilligan (1982), and Nel Noddings (1984, 2003) provide more articulated conceptions of care. Each of these definitions of care found in empirical studies dervied from the ethics of care. Since the ethics of care contributes to the literature in ways not necessarily encompassing how to define care, some of the elements in defining care are difficult to locate or extract. For example, Gilligan’s work is widely recognized in moral developmental psychology and focuses on a voice (the ethics of care) that was often overlooked in moral development. Gilligan’s contribution in moral development is
tremendous. However, she provides a more intuitive sense of care rather than suggesting specific elements that provide well-defined boundaries. If one were to extract care elements from her proposed ethic, five can be recognized: Paying Attention, Listening, Responding, Responsibility and Relationship. Taken together, these elements seemly represent care. Looking closely, one might find
herself wondering how they are represented in her definition of care because all the features can be perceived in many different ways. Using one of the elements—relationship as an example, what does it mean to be in a caring relationship? What does a relationship look like? Moreover, since the focus of Gilligan’s ethic of care is not in defining care, this presents challenges in operationalizing her definition of care for quantitative measurement. As evident in the scale development steps
above, operationalizing the construct can assist the clarity of what the researcher intends to measure.
Another important philosopher is Milton Mayeroff who, in contrast to Gilligan, provides eight different features of care: Knowing, Alternating Rhythms, Patience, Honesty, Trust, Humility, Hope and Courage (Mayeroff, 1971). He specifically provides the description of all the elements and how they are interpreted in the context of care. However, he fails to separate the eight features from their original meaning and neighboring concepts, such as a moral person. Taken together, the elements could be describing a good teacher, good parent, and good mentor. Without a clear boundary framing the concept of care, it becomes difficult to operationalize, which is a crucial step in survey development. Gilligan’s conception of care is relatively vague and Mayeroff’s definition is relatively broad, which both pose challenges to offering a well-defined boundary of care to a quantitative researcher.
On the other hand, Noddings (1984, 2003) provides a useful and detailed account of care which can be relatively easier to operationalize. Her definition of care has four important elements: Engrossment, Motivational Displacement, Reciprocity, and Attribution of Best Motive Consonant with Reality. Velasquez et al. (2013) point out in their review of literature that the current survey instruments may be less robust because “…they were less related to Noddings’ theory of care” (p. 176). In addition, Noddings’ conception of care is the only definition that explicitly explains the relational notion of care and incorporates Reciprocity as a core element of a caring relationship. According to the findings from qualitative research, relationship and connections were repeated themes (Cothran et al., 2003; Garrett et al., 2009; Straits, 2007). In addition, Velasquez et al. (2013) identify the lack of available research that investigates and understands the inherent relationality of care by collecting data from both students and teachers. Mayeroff’s (1971) and Gilligan’s (1982) definitions of care discuss the relationship as an important element but do not emphasize the relational notion of care nor define what a two directional relationship would look like in their
definitions. Noddings conception of care sheds considerable light on care and this complex idea, particularly in educational settings (Diller, 1988). Furthermore, Noddings situates her idea of care in the school context, whereas the other two definitions do not explicitly apply their ideas in the context of schools. Taken together, these latter two considerations justify the claim that Nel Noddings’ conception of care is the most suitable for this article as the baseline theory for my critique.
Nel Noddings’ Conception of Care
Although Nel Noddings’ (1984) conception of care is also derived from moral philosophy, an aspect that sets her apart from others is her clear definition of care within the ethics of care. As a philosopher, Noddings is familiar with the ambiguities that can surround care and she has taken pains to develop a clear conception of her own, one that allows its use in a variety of settings, and especially in education. Noddings (1984, 2003) theorizes that the one-caring’s (her term for care giver) consciousness is characterized by Engrossment and Motivational Displacement.
Engrossment is the ability to bracket oneself to pay attention to the needs of the cared-for (her term for the ones receiving care). Motivational Displacement means taking on the cared-for’s projects (e.g., expressed needs and goals) as one’s own to assist them in accomplishing their projects.
Another important element of caring is that the one-caring assumes the cared-for is well intentioned or has good motives. Noddings calls this feature of care Attribution of Best Motive Consonant with Reality. Noddings recognizes that teachers also need to be familiar with the students’ particular situations and have a good understanding of their students in order to make a real and genuine judgement of the students’ best motives that they also know to be consonant with reality (Noddings, 1984, 2003).
Another primary element of a caring relationship, or a caring moment, in Noddings’ conception of caring, is Reciprocity. By Reciprocity, Noddings means that the cared-for
be expressed in some cases by the cared-for simply getting on with their projects. The important point here is that in caring relationships, as Noddings defines them, a one-caring and a cared-for must both contribute to the interaction in order for the relationship to be called a caring one (Noddings, 1984, 2003). Caring, on her account is not something that can be done unilaterally. It is this conception of care that I use for assessing contemporary quantitative studies on care.
It is also important to note that in this study, care can be seen as an individual perception, quality of a relationship, or quality of an environment. Noddings would say that care should exist in all three dimensions. To thoroughly and carefully explore care as a phenomenon, the first step is to capture individual perceptions of care. This step would assist and inform policy and practice on how to provide care and create a caring environment for our students. Therefore, here in this article, I devoted my attention to individual perceptions with special attention in how relationality is studied according to Noddings’ conception of care. This focus on individuals’ perceptions of care is the first step in understanding the phenomena with hope that it can be a foundation for further research to expand the scope of care.
Critiques of Noddings’ ethic of care. The major critique of Noddings derives from critiques of the ethics of care. There are three major critiques: (1) care is suited only or primarily for use in the private sphere (Rest et al., 1999); (2) it is often imposed solely or primarily on women (Graham, 1983); and (3) the ethics of care arises from a white feminist perspective (Rolon-Dow, 2005). These three critiques have been answered by Noddings briefly, her answers are as follows (1) her book Starting at Home outlines in detail just how the ethic of care is applicable in many
public policy realms; (2) while the ethic of care may be expected of women it is not an ethic solely for women; it is an ethic for everyone and there is nothing in the ethic that prohibits any human from adopting it; and finally, (3) Noddindgs points out that the ethic specifically emphasizes attention to the particularities of the person, the situation, and the context. Indeed given its eschewal of the universal and principles in favor of such particularities, it more than most other
ethics theories, clearly eschews the pitfalls of false universalization.
Whether we find Noddings answers to these criticisms satisfactory or not, the central point to bear in mind is that the three major critiques are of the ethics of care and do not necessarily criticize the definition, the conception of care, which is the focus of this study. It is not to say the critiques are completely irrelevant to understanding care. In fact, mindful of one of the criticisms, Tosolt (2008) investigates care perceptions based on students’ ethnicity, and studies often include basic demographic information in their investigation, such as gender. Both gender and ethnicity are important elements to consider in student’s understanding of care, however, in this study, I focus on understanding how care is measured and understood and only lightly touch on other important issues.