To
date, over 80,000 individuals have been assessed
using the HBVCI from ninth grade through adult populations, including
longitudinal studies at the United States Military Academy at West
Point, the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, to youth,
interscholastic, and intercollegiate athletes and coaches and the
general non-competitive population. The HBVCI has a high reliability and
validity, with Chronbach Alphas from .74 to .88. The HBVCI, the "Moral
Reasoning and Moral Development in Sport Review and HBVCI Manual", and
normative tables are available from the Center for ETHICS*.
The HBVCI has been translated into six different languages.
To
date, secondary analyses have been run and preliminary normative tables
have been developed (see Norms in Moral Reasoning and Moral Development
in Sport and HBVCI Manual, available from the Center for ETHICS*). 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.
Deontic Reasoning and Selected HBVCI Questions Below are three inventory
examples of moral situations in sport. Following the questions are
discussions concerning how a deontic 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 deontic reasoned response for each case.
Question 1: 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. SA A N D SD
Based on deontological theory, 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).
Question 2: 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. SA A N D SD
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).
Question 3: 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. SA A N D
S D
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 HBVCI is not so concerned with the
specific moral values, as much as, whether deontic reasoning is used and
how consistent is the reasoning.
Theoretical Foundation:
Based in ethical theory, the HBVCI specifically uses deontological or
deontic theory as its theoretical guide. Specifically, deontological
ethics provides answers to such questions as: "What is the nature of
rightness?" That is, deontics study the relationship of rightness to
another basic concept of ethics - duty or moral obligation. In general,
the deontics consider these concepts to be synonymous, holding that
statements "Action X is right", "Action X is my duty", and "I ought, or
am morally obligated, to do action X", are equivalent in meaning (Ross,
1930, p.3-4). Deontological theory therefore holds that rightness is a
fundamental, irreducible ethical concept.
Deontic theory lies in an appeal to moral life itself. For example,
promise-keeping is an act that we believe is right. We believe that it
is our duty to keep promises, not because doing so will produce the best
possible consequences, but simply because we have made the promise. That
is, promise-keeping is right because it is promise keeping. Ross (1930)
called this kind of example a "prima facie duty". "`Prima facie duty" of
`conditional duty' is a brief way of referring to the characteristic
(quite distinct from that of being a duty proper) which an act has, in
virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g. the keeping of a promise), of
being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same
time of another kind which is morally significant." (p.19) Deontic
theory, such as Ross' prima facie duty, has an inherent rightness for
all actions which we ought to follow, rather than considering the
consequences. Deontic, sometimes called, nonconsequentialists, maintain
either that consequences do not count at all in deciding what is morally
right, or that rightness is a function of many considerations. Deontic
theories can be divided into act and rule deontology. The latter holds
that moral judgements are determined by references to something general,
a rule or principle. Frankena (1973) said "rule deontologists hold that
the standard or right or wrong consists of one or more rules - concrete
ones like `we ought always to tell the truth."
On
the other hand, act deontology does not appeal to the principles. The
act deontics maintain that it is straight forwardly a matter of
perception whether an act is right or wrong. Ashmore (1987) said that
moral judgment are not proven by inference or argument from other
knowledge sources because values are capable of being directly or
immediately apprehended. The act deontologists' argument against rule
deontologists is that: "1) Whatever principles would be the premises of
a moral argument must themselves have been derived from particular
perceptions. 2) Although we try to develop general moral principles that
capture moral truth in our experience, this effort can never be
completely successful, because each particular act, situation or person
is unique" (Ashmore, 1987, p.98).
In
contrast, the rule deontics argue that rules are basic and are not
derived by induction from particular cases. The rule deontologists
assert that judgments about what we should do in particular cases are
always determined in light of the rules (Frankena, 1973, p.17). Hare
(1952) agreed about the necessity of the rule and stated: "To learn to
do anything is never to learn to do an individual act; it is always to
learn to do acts of a certain kind of situation; and this is to learn a
principle. Without principles or rules we could not learn anything
whatever from our elders...every generation would have to start from
scratch and teach itself. But...self-teaching like all other teaching,
is the teaching of principles or rules." (p.60-61)
With such different perspectives of deontology, it is difficult to
decide which perspective is better because both act deontology and
rule deontology have merit. For this instrument, no differentiation is
made between rule and act deontology because the essential natures are
the same: they both state that moral acts, intentions, and motives
have an inherent rightness that we ought to follow. Deontics, in
general, argue that certain universal codes of conduct exist. That is,
certain basic moral values can be generalized and are universal to all
mankind.
The HBVCI is based on three of these universal codes of conduct:
honesty, responsibility, and justice. Using deontic theory, definitions
for honesty, responsibility, and justice were developed.
For the HBVCI:
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 or rational conduct.
Justice is defined as an equity or fairness for treating peers or
competitors equally. Justice is the quality of being righteous or of
dealing justly with others. It is based in the integrity of doing the
right or fair act.
The HBVCI theoretically assumes that by applying the defined principles
of honesty, responsibility, and justice, any abused or confused
situation should be solved deontologically. This implies that an already
established rightness or right action/rule might be followed in order to
avoid violating other players.
Reliability:
The HBVCI questions how participants reason in the sport context
concerning honesty, responsibility, and justice. The HBVCI's
deontological foundation proposes that the former values are followed in
action, word, and deed.
Thirty inventory questions were designed using current sport moral
dilemmas. Ten questions for each value were included in a Part A and
Part B format (15 questions each). To measure reliability (consistency),
the questions were listed in parallel form. Using a Likert scale of SA =
strongly agree, A = agree, N = neutral, D = disagree, and SD = strongly
disagree, subjects responded to one of the five former scales that most
clearly represented their thoughts and feelings. Questions 2, 5, 8, 11,
14, 17, and 20 represent the deontic value of honesty, where as
questions 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 18 reflect responsibility. Finally,
questions 1, 4, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 21 represent the deontic value of
justice. While the HBVCI's measurement level is ordinal rather than
interval, because the sums (or means) of the 21 questions (total
reasoning scores and three scale scores) are used, normality is assumed.
October, 1987, one hundred and thirty randomly selected high school
physical education and health students and student athletes completed
the pilot study. The sample consisted of 65 males and 65 females. 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. The independent variables consisted of Tests Form A and
Form B and the three scales of honesty, responsibility, and justice. The
dependent variables included summed total reasoning scores, as well as
the sums of the three separate values: honesty, responsibility, and
justice.
The initial pilot study found a reliability of 0.65. Because the
reliability scores were below acceptable standards, questions with low
reliability were deleted and others rewritten to clarify meaning. Form A
and Form B were then combined into one twenty-one question inventory,
with seven questions corresponding to each scale: honesty,
responsibility, and justice.
December, 1987, twenty-four randomly selected college physical education
majors participated in the inventory's second pilot study. Test
development reliability coefficients for deontological scores ranged
from 0.75 to 0.88 (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989b). Moreover, both Hahm's
(1989) study of 197 American student athletes and general students, and
Penny and Priest's (1990) study of 2,044 U.S.M.A. cadets, found
consistent reliability coefficients with test development, 0.75 to 0.88
and 0.74 to 0.79 respectively. In Hahm's (1989) study, total
deontological scores on the HBVCI reflected similar scores with the
DIT's "P" values. In particular, male student athletes' low total
deontological mean scores (60.51) also reflected a low DIT "P" mean
value (32.36).
Although higher, female total deontological scores reflect similar
patterns: HBVCI mean scores (70.79) and DIT mean "P" values (35.92). A
reliability study was conducted on 6,500 HBVCIs taken by
interscholastic, intercollegiate, and elite athletes and coaches, and
high school and university age general students (non-athletes). The
Cronbach's Alpha Index ranged from 0.77 to 0.79. The results were well
within the range found in previous studies using the HBVCI.
Validity:
The inventory has been read and evaluated by several notable sport and
general ethicists who agreed that the inventory, in their
interpretations, does measure deontological 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 DIT was used as a measure
of concurrent validity. The DIT itself is known as a valid and reliable
measurement instrument. The original American DIT test-retest
reliability analysis conducted by Rest (1979) was 0.82. In addition, DIT
internal consistency checks were 0.77 for Rest (1979) and 0.66 for
Dickensian (1979). Furthermore, the Chronbach's Alpha Index, found by
calculating each story's stage scores across the six categories, is
found in the high 0.70s.
Hahm's (1989) study, found total deontological scores on the HBVCI
reflected similar scores with the DIT's "P" values. In particular, male
student athlete scores (60.51) also reflected a low DIT "P" mean value
(28.74). In 1990, Beller found a 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 (Beller & Stoll, 1995). Specifically, results
show a steady decline in cognitive moral reasoning from ninth grade
through university age populations (Beller & Stoll, 1995).
Measures of validity are not separate and distinct entities. Rather, the
areas of validity are meshed. Furthermore, validity relies on
reliability. Reliability concerns the repeatability of a set of
measures. The test must be consistent, in that successive measurements
must produce similar results. In particular, an inventory cannot be
considered valid if not reliable, however, an inventory could be
reliable but not valid. Longitudinal studies of over 5,000 cadets at the
USMA and USAFA have found high consistency with the HBVCI. Specifically,
scores for incoming cadets at the USMA in 1988 were identical to scores
of incoming cadets at the USAFA in 1994.
Cadets for each of these institutions are selected from the upper 3-4
percent of high school graduates nationwide. Thus over time, scores for
similar populations reveal consistency on the HBVCI.
|