HBVCI

Definitions

Honesty is defined as the condition or capacity of being trustworthy or truthful. Honesty, in this sense, is a basic character that society espouses - an ideal of moral development...to be honest in thought, word, or deed. Honesty, therefore, is the code of conduct which takes into consideration lying, cheating, and stealing, and refers to the honest person as one who follows the rules and laws.

Responsibility is defined as accounting for one's actions in the past, present, and future. We are responsible for our acts, if, and only if, we did the act or caused it to occur. A responsible person is morally accountable and capable of rational conduct.

Reliability

The SPSSX "Reliability Model" computer package, using the split-half and test-retest techniques, was used to examine inter-question and Form A-B reliability on the long form Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory. Chronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for principled reasoning scores on the long form ranged in all studies of over 45,000 individuals from 0.75 to 0.88 (Beller, & Stoll, 1999). Reliability for the short form HBVCI (10 questions as a part of the RSBHVI) ranges from 0.85- 0.88.

Validity 

Three basic types of validity exist when discussing instrument validity: 1) content, 2) construct, and 3) criterion (APA, AERA, & NCME standards).

Content validity was examined several notable sport and general ethicists who agreed that the inventory, in their interpretations, does measure principled reasoning. The sport ethicists have written and published extensively in the area of ethics and sport, and were members of the Academy of Physical Education and the international Philosophic Society for the study of sport. The general ethicists were known for their teaching and publishing in the area of theoretical and applied ethics.

During the HBVCI test development stages, the Defining Issues Test [DIT] was used as a measure of concurrent validity (Rest, 1971). The DIT is known as a valid and reliable measurement instrument for measuring moral reasoning using hypothetical social situations. Initial DIT test-retest reliability analysis conducted by Rest (1979) were 0.82. DIT Chronbach Alpha Indexes were found in the high 0.70s. Hahm (1989) found a moderately high correlation between total HBVCI scores and DIT's "P" values. Beller (1990) found a high correlation between the HBVCI total deontic reasoning scores and the DIT "P Index" of 0.82.

Across all studies using the HBVCI, data are consistent in that student athletes reason at a lower level compared to non-athletes (Beller, Stoll, & Sumanik, 1992; Beller & Stoll, 1992a; Beller & Stoll, 1991, Beller, 1990; Penny & Priest, 1990; Hahm, 1989); Empirical evidence from the HBVCI supports previous sport psychologists' and sport sociologists' hypotheses that the longer athletes participate in sport, the less able they are to reason morally. Specifically, results show a steady masking of cognitive moral reasoning from ninth grade through university age populations (Beller & Stoll, 1995).

Because of the consistent and high reliability and sound validity measures, the HBVCI is appropriate, meaningful, and useful to measure principled reasoning in the sport milieu. It has been used in over 150 studies, with 45,000 different individuals involved in competitive and not competitive endeavors.

Interpreting the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory Scores

When evaluating test scores, the higher the mean score, the more a principled approach is used when making cognitive moral decisions. Results you receive will include a total HBVCI Principle Reasoning Score and a total Social Index Score.

HBVCI scores do not reflect moral action, but rather cognitive moral knowledge. In other words, the inventory is not designed to assess individual reasoning to project honest, just, or responsible moral actions. Rather, the inventory gives a characterization about how different groups morally reason and make cognitive judgments about moral issues in sport. The inventory is designed to assess mean reasoning scores of different groups and make inferences to populations as a whole. It is also important to note that cognitive knowledge, is not the only factor affecting moral action. 

Three general concepts to foster development and maturation of moral character are: moral knowing, moral valuing, and moral acting. Moral knowing is the cognitive phase of learning about moral issues and how to resolve them (Lickona, 1991). Moral Knowing involves sensitivity, self-knowing, moral reasoning, perspective taking, and decision making. Moral valuing is the basis of what we believe about ourselves, society, and other around us. Moral valuing involves the conscious, self-esteem, empathy, self-control, and humility. Moral action is our outward behavior that we manifest contingent on our values and cognitive processes. Moral acting involves knowledge, courage, determination, and habit. Kohlberg (1981) and Rest (1983) state that moral understanding should directly affect moral motivation and behavior. Kohlberg, however, states that the strength of the relationship is only moderate. At this point, he and others state that too many other factors are involved for a high correlation, such as emotion, empathy, guilt, social background, experiences, and so forth. The three phases work in concert to help us make moral decisions (Stoll & Beller, 1992, p.4).

The HBVCI measures "cognitive knowing" and in no way predicts or measures moral action. However, cognitive knowing is a precursor to moral action. Interpretation of data from the HBVCI should be used as an indicator of perspectives different groups use when making cognitive decisions about right actions in sport. From this information, educational programs can be developed to foster critical thinking and moral reasoning.

Principled Reasoning and Selected HBVCI Questions

Below are three inventory examples of moral situations in sport. Following the questions are discussions concerning how a principled individual may reason through these questions. A respondent is asked to mark each question, SA = strongly agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree. Immediately following is a typical principled reasoned response for each case.

Honesty

Male soccer players are allowed to play the ball with any part of their body except the hands or outstretched arms. A soccer player receives a chest high pass and taps the ball to the ground with his hand. The referee does not see this action and the play continues, Because it is the referee's job to see these actions, the player is not obligated to report his foul.

Based on principled thinking, this scenario deals with a direct action by the participant or moral agent. In this case, the moral agent acted and then passed his obligation of honesty to an authority and then lied by omission about the act. A deontic would say that he is being dishonest in his act of omission and irresponsible by passing his responsibility to another. A true deontic, therefore, would tell the referee that he touched the ball with the hand and accept the consequences. As scored on the HBVCI, a deontic would mark this question SD (strongly disagree).

Responsibility

A gold medal track athlete was told to undergo drug testing during a recent international competition. She opposed the drug testing because she played by the rules, competed on her won merits, and did not use performance enhancing drugs. She believed that athletic organizations had no moral authority to force her to be tested. Consequently, because she and other athletes should be considered sincere, drug testing should not be mandatory.

This question concerns beliefs rather than actions. It questions what should be rather than what is. Therefore, the deontic is asked to weigh the scenario and decide what would be a responsible recommendation about a rule. A deontic might say that irresponsible behavior should not be tolerated. Any athlete who uses steroids is highly suspect, irresponsible, and immoral. And, such abusers should not be permitted to play the game. Does this mean that all athletes should be tested? Not necessarily. The deontic would say that everyone should not be assumed guilty because of the acts of a few. To assume that everyone is guilty is to be irresponsible to the duty of justice. The governing body has a responsibility to punish offenders and to try to keep competition "clean", yet it also has a responsibility to the non-abusers. A deontic might say that what is needed is a comprehensive moral education program that addresses drug use and a better action might be to only test those who show some appearance of drug use. The deontic, therefore, would argue that drug testing should not be mandatory and would mark SA (strongly agree).

Justice

During the double play in baseball, players must tag second base before throwing to first. However, some players deliberately fake the tag, thus delivering a quicker throw to first base. Pretending to tag second base is justified because it is good strategy. Besides, the umpire's job is to call an illegal play.

This question has two parts, on the action of abridging a rule in the name of strategy and the second statement acts as an irrelevant distractor. The statement, "Besides, the umpire's job is to call an illegal play" is irrelevant. The umpire's job has nothing to do with deciding the issue of good strategy. A reasoned deontic would instantly dismiss this statement and resolve the greater question of justice. Therefore, we turn to the next question, what would a deontic say about abridging rules in the name of good strategy? A deontic would never accept that this action is justified. Cheating in the name of good strategy is never fair or just. Fair play is playing by the rules, both by the letter and intent. Abridging the rules to gain an advantage and calling it strategy is never justified. The deontic, therefore, would mark SD (strongly disagree).

The seven questions in each category of honesty, responsibility, and justice are based in the same reasoned approach. As is evident from the discussion, elements of each of the three moral values exist when making moral decisions. The moral side is not so concerned with the specific values, as much as, whether principled reasoning is used and how consistent is the reasoning.

Social Reasoning

The social side of the RSBH Values Judgment Inventory is about weighing a social value against a moral value, which is more important. The social side is about the real world and how society views the importance of, for lack of a better term, social character. Thus, we must understand that an individual who has great social character may have no moral character what-so-ever. They are two completely different aspects of character. That is why principled thinkers would argue that an individual who has social character without moral character is dishonorable. In other words, one could be highly loyal to an immoral practice. One could be highly dedicated to an immoral organization.

The 10 questions in the social reasoning side are based on values of loyalty, teamwork, and self-sacrifice. The social values were selected based on lengthy literature reviews concerning the building of character through sport and competition. Generally, the questions involve scenarios outside the lines of competition.

Three pilot studies were run with separate social reasoning and moral reasoning sides of the instrument (Rudd, 1998). Internal consistency was run using Chronbach Alpha procedures. Reliability was found between 0.67 to 0.73 for the social reasoning side and .86 to .88 for the moral reasoning.

Factor analyses were run on the combined inventory. Overall, the rotated factor pattern within the factor analysis did not reveal any mutual loadings between the moral and the social questions. Thus, there appears to be a demarcation between the social questions and the moral questions. A fourth study was run with the combined moral reasoning and social reasoning questions. Rational equivalence was also run and found a Chronbach Alpha of 0.73 for the social side and 0.88 for the moral side (Rudd, 1998)

RSBH Social Examples

Example 1

Three basketball players have an algebra class together.  The instructor of the class has a reputation for giving tough exams and limited office hours.  Lisa and Shirley, two of the star players, have studied hard all semester, but are fighting to pass the class, whereas Tara is doing well.  If Lisa and Shirley do not pass the course, they will be ineligible for the coming season.  For the final exam, Lisa and Shirley position themselves next to Tara.  Tara should help Lisa and Shirley by making sure they can see her exam.  

Strongly Agree      Agree      Neutral      Disagree     Strongly Disagree

This question has to do with the issue of loyalty to a group which is in conflict with cheating. Which is more important: To help a teammate or to be honest? The principled thinker would argue that even though loyalty is a necessary value in any competitive environment, loyalty itself without being framed by honesty is to be dishonorable. The best practice for Tara, as a teammate, is to give Lisa and Shirley support in learning how to study and to be responsible for their learning. A true teammate worries about the end result, not the short term of getting a good grade. The principled thinker would mark SD (strongly disagree).

Example 2

Jeremiah, the pitcher from Team A throws a 90 mile per hour fastball that hits Marvin, the batter from Team B in the elbow.  Marvin falls to the ground in enormous pain and consequently must leave the game for X-rays.  The following inning, Marvin's teammates urge Alex, the pitcher from Team B, to throw at Team A's batter.  Alex should take care of this teammates and throw at the batter.

Strongly Agree      Agree      Neutral      Disagree Strongly Disagree

Findings with RSBH

Studies with the combined RSBH Values Judgment Inventory have found interesting results. In all studies to date, individuals score higher on the social side compared to the moral side of the instrument (Rudd, 1998; Beller & Stoll, 1999; Beller & Stoll, 2000). This is not surprising, given the high price we place on teamwork, self-sacrifice, and loyalty in our country today.

For more information or to order CEP, contact:   Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll

For information on Research/Measurement Contact: Dr. Jennifer M. Beller