Revelatory Ethics

Revelatory Ethics

Methodological Status of Moral Psychology Scales in Iran: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
hamid Rafiei-honar 1
Hamidraza Hasanabadi 2
1 Faculty member of Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy, Qom, IR
2 A faculty member of Kharazmi University of Tehran
10.22034/ethics.2022.159502
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the conceptual and psychometric status of ethics scales in Iranian research from 1350 to 1399. The research method was a systematic review based on the COSMIN checklist in three indexes of validity, reliability, and responsiveness in the form of 9 parameters involving content validity, internal consistency, relative measures, measurement error, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness. Research data were identified in six steps and 92 scales were selected. Findings showed that of all scales (intra-person, 37 scales; inter-person, 26 scales; and socio-organizational, 29 scales) only the internal consistency parameter could be observed in more than 70% of cases, and the results were positive. After that, conceptualization, content validity, and hypothesis testing were considered in 50% of the scales, and the results were positive. Other parameters were not calculated in most reports, the information is not available, or their review is not relevant. In the present study, no "desirable" scale was identified that considered all the relevant parameters of COSMIN; only 5% of the scales are "acceptable", 40% are "in need of completion", 30% are "in need of re-examination", and 25% are "in need of detailed information". Therefore, if the percentage of scales that need to be completed is added to the acceptable scales, it can be claimed that 45% of Iranian ethics scales have the potential to be used; And the rest need to review or provide detailed information for evaluation and judgment.
Keywords
Moral Psychology
Moral Scale
Moral Concepts
Validity
Reliability
COSMIN
Review
  1. آذربایجانی، مسعود (1391). سنجش مفاهیم اخلاقی. اخلاق وحیانی. 2، 32-7.
  2. اوجاقی، ناصرالدین (1386). دین و تأثیر آن بر رفتار اخلاقی. معرفت، 113، 30-17.
  3. رفیعی هنر، حمید (1395). روا‌‌ن‌شناسی مهار خویشتن با نگرش اسلامی. قم: مؤسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی.
  4. شریفی، احمد حسین (1394)، ویژگی‌های موضوع علم اخلاق و دلالت‌های روش‌شناختی آن، اخلاق وحیانی، 8، 64-47.
  5. لینلی، آلکس و ژوزف، استفن (2004). روان‌شناسی مثبت در عمل، ترجمه احمد برجعلی و سعید عبدالملکی، تهران: موسسه نشر پنجره، 1388.
  6. مصباح یزدی، محمدتقی (1386). معارف قرآن3: انسان‌شناسى. قم: مؤسسه آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی.
  7. Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of assessment and treatment planning for psychological disorders. Guilford press.
  8. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209.
  9. Flanagan, O. J., & Flanagan, O. J. (2009). Varieties of moral personality: Ethics and psychological realism. Harvard University Press.
  10. Furlan, A. D., Malmivaara, A., Chou, R., Maher, C. G., Deyo, R. A., Schoene, M., & Van Tulder, M. W. (2015). 2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine, 40(21), 1660-1673.
  11. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
  12. Higgins, Julian and Green, Sally (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  13. Howitt, D. (2019). Introduction to qualitative research methods in psychology: Putting theory into practice. Pearson UK.
  14. Lapsley, D. K. (2018). Moral psychology. Routledge.
  15. Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures(pp. xvii-495). American Psychological Association.
  16. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC medical research methodology, 10(1), 22.
  17. Nathawat, S. S. (2017). Measures of Positive Psychology: Development and Validation. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 43(2), 334-334.
  18. Paulhus, Delroy, L. & Jones, Daniel, N. (2015). " Measures of Dark Personalities", In: Gregory J. Boyle, Donald H. Saklofske, & Gerald Matthews (Eds.), Measures Of Personality And Social Psychological Constructs (pp562-594) , Elsevier Inc.
  19. Rettew, Jeff G. and Lopez, Shane J.(2008). “Discovering Your Strengths”, In: Shane J. Lopez (editor) ; Positive psychology : exploring the best in people, foreword by Sonja Lyubomirsky, (pp1-22), Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
  20. Saklofske, Boyle, G., & Matthews, G. (Eds.). (2014). Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. Academic Press.
  21. Taghiloo, Sadegh (2017). "Developing and Validation of Moral Behavior Styles Inventory", Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, N.1, V.2. 17-27.
  22. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42.
  23. Trujols, J., Ballesteros, J., Solà, I., & Portella, M. J. (2015). Improving systematic reviews on psychometric properties of measurement instruments: A letter to the Editor commenting on Reilly et al.'s (2015) review of the psychometric literature on QIDS. Journal of psychiatric research, 62, 136-137.
  24. Vitell, S. J., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., & Ammeter, A. P. (2009). Religiosity and Moral Identity: The Mediating Role of Self-Control. Journal of Business Ethics, No, 88, 613-601.