Structural Validity Evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale Across 15 Languages-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Structural Validity Evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale Across 15 Languages

Published:2024-04-01 Issue:1 Volume:5 Page:175-191
ISSN:2698-1866
Container-title:Psychological Test Adaptation and Development
language:en
Short-container-title:Psychological Test Adaptation and Development

Author:

Oshiro Briana¹^ORCID,McAuliffe William H. B.²,Luong Raymond¹^ORCID,Santos Anabela C.³⁴^ORCID,Findor Andrej⁵^ORCID,Kuzminska Anna O.⁶^ORCID,Lantian Anthony⁷^ORCID,Özdoğru Asil A.⁸^ORCID,Aczel Balazs⁹,Dinić Bojana M.¹⁰^ORCID,Chartier Christopher R.¹¹,Hidding Jasper¹²,de Grefte Job A. M.¹³,Protzko John¹⁴,Shaw Mairead¹,Primbs Maximilian A.¹⁵,Coles Nicholas A.¹⁶^ORCID,Arriaga Patricia¹⁷^ORCID,Forscher Patrick S.¹⁸,Lewis Savannah C.¹¹^ORCID,Nagy Tamás⁹^ORCID,de Vries Wieteke C.¹²^ORCID,Jimenez-Leal William¹⁹^ORCID,Li Yansong²⁰,Flake Jessica Kay¹^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

2. Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, Malden, MA, USA

3. Aventura Social and Instituto de Saúde Ambiental (ISAMB), Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

4. CIS-IUL, ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal

5. Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia

6. Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, Poland

7. Department of Psychology, Université Paris Nanterre, France

8. Department of Psychology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

9. Institute of Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

10. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

11. Department of Psychology, Ashland University, OH, USA

12. Department of Marketing, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

13. Department of Philosophy, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

14. Department of Psychological Science, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT, USA

15. Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud University, The Netherlands

16. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, CA, USA

17. ISCTE – Instituto Universitá rio de Lisboa (IUL), Portugal

18. Interuniversity Laboratory of Psychology, Personality, Cognition, Social Change (LIP/PC25), Université Grenoble Alpes, France

19. Department of Psychology, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

20. Department of Psychology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) recently completed a large-scale moral psychology study using translated versions of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS). However, the translated versions have no validity evidence. Objective: The study investigated the structural validity evidence of the OUS across 15 translated versions and produced version-specific validity reports. Methods: We analyzed OUS data from the PSA, which was collected internationally on a centralized online questionnaire . We also collected qualitative feedback from experts for each translated version. Results: For each version, we produced version-specific psychometric reports which include the following: (1) descriptive item and demographics analyses, (2) factor structure evidence using confirmatory factor analyses, (3) measurement invariance testing across languages using multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses and alignment optimization, and (4) reliability analyses using coefficients α and ω.

Publisher

Hogrefe Publishing Group

Link

https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/2698-1866/a000061

Reference42 articles.

1. A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data

2. Multiple-Group Factor Analysis Alignment

3. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants

4. Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample

5. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Want to try a registered report? Here are our lessons learned.;Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale;2024-07-25