Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information): This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact [email protected] for more information.
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Page 43 Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 1995, pp. 43-53 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility Cynthia Olney James Madison University Steve Grande University of Maryland A service-learning model by Delve, Mintz, and Stewart (1990) describes developmentalprocesses experienced by students engaged in community volunteer work, from sporadic involvement to internalization ofsocial responsibility. The Scale ofService Learning Involvement was developed to validate the model as well as to assess student outcomes. Reliability, concurrent validity, and contrasting group validity indicated strongpsychometric qualities. Applications pertaining to the potential use of this instrument are discussed. Service-learning programs provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful and reciprocal service to the community while participating in various forms ofreflection including classroom learning. Although passage of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 recently brought service-learning into the national spotlight, the service-learning movement has been gaining momentum since the mid1980's. Hundreds of colleges and universities have developed offices, programs and services designed to integrate students' community experiences with academic learning (Gitlin, 1994). Over 100 different definitions have been recorded for service-learning, often with a common theme that service-learning is a "program type and philosophy ofeducation" (Giles, Honnet, & Migliore, 1991, p. 7). As an educational philosophy, service-learning emphasizes experience for the common good rather than for personal advancement (Giles et al., 1991). Servicelearning differs from volunteering in that (1) students engage in active reflection on their community experience, and (2) community learning is connected to academic learning. In addition, it is often assumed that volunteering and servicelearning enhance students' development of social responsibility, which includes a sense of the obligations of citizenship, awareness of social injustice and its complex causes, and dedication to working toward social equity. There has been very little research investigating the relationship between student development theory and service involvement; for instance, adequate data does not exist to confirm a relationship between service and the development of social responsibility (Giles & Eyler, 1994). However, a model created by Delve, Mintz, and Stewart (1990) provides a valuable conceptual framework for assessing the developmental effects of service-learning. The model describes the developmental process that students experience as they engage in service-learning activities and clearly outlines the relationship between service and social responsibility. To date, the model has received little empirical validation, due in part to lack of an appropriate measurement tool. This article reports the psychometric qualities of the Scale of Service Learning Involvement (SSLI; see Appendix),' which was designed to track the effects of community involvement and service learning on college students' development of social responsibility. Service-Learning Model Delve et al's (1990) service-learning model describes the development of students' social responsibility via volunteer experiences. Drawing on the intellectual and moral development theories of Perry, Kohlberg, and Gilligan, the service-learning model consists of five phases of social responsibility development. The first is the exploration phase, in which students are eager to help or get involved in public service activities, but have no focused commitment to a campus 43
Page 44 Olney and Grande group or a community agency. The second phase, clarification, also is characterized by exploratory behavior, but the students begin to clarify their values regarding service work. Students in both phases may be initially motivated by a personal need or desire (like receiving a t-shirt or competing in a fund-raising race) or commitment to a peer group (i.e., a Greek organization or religious group). In the realization phase, students often experience a change in orientation in which they learn something important about themselves and become committed to a particular population or issue. They begin to connect their service work to their lives, which increases their excitement and commitment to a service site. In the activation stage, students begin to grasp a larger, more complex understanding of social issues and often are motivated by injustices they observe. They begin to identify with the population they serve and to become advocates. Finally, in the internalization phase, students have integrated their service experiences into their lives, often to the point of making changes in personal and career goals. In these last two phases, the students begin to demonstrate their commitment to their new values through all aspects of their lifestyle and communication. They also make lifetime commitments to fighting social injustice. The SSLI was designed to provide empirical validation for the service-learning model developed by Delve et al. (1990). The purpose of the present article is twofold. First, it reports the psychometric qualities of the SSLI scale. Second, it provides validation for the service-learning model by comparing students who participated in service-learning activities to those who did not. Methods Participants The SSLI survey was administered to a random sample of sophomores (N=285) who participated in a mid-sized comprehensive university's annual assessment day. All students had completed 45-69 undergraduate credit hours. Of the group, 175 (61%) were female and 110 (39%) were male. Students identified their level of involvement in the campus Center for Service Learning (CSL): 197 (69%) indicated that they had never participated in the campus Center for Service Learning program, 25 (9%) had participated in CSL for course credit, 33 (12%) had participated as volunteers, 28 (10%) had participated both for course credit and as volunteers, and two (<1%) did not identify their level of experience with CSL. Instruments Scale of Service Learning Involvement. The SSLI scale was created to measure the developmental phases of the service-learning model. The instrument consists of 60 statements to which respondents indicate their level of agreement along a four-point Likert scale: 4=strongly reflects my feelings about volunteer work; 3=somewhat reflects my feelings about volunteer work; 2=does not much reflect my feelings about volunteer work; l=does not at all reflect my feelings about volunteer work. In developing the scale, the authors realized that the distinction between the first two stages (exploration and clarification) was not strong enough to create scales that would be relatively independent. The same problem occurred for the last two stages (activation and internalization). Therefore, a decision was made to create three subscales: Exploration, which combines the exploration and clarification phases; Realization, which measure the realization phase of the model; and Internalization, which is associated with the activation and internalization phases. A sample of items from each subscale are listed below: Exploration: I choose my volunteer work based on what members of my peer group decide to do. The last time I volunteered to help with a group I did so mainly because volunteers got something fun, like a t-shirt. Realization: I feel very loyal toward one particular organization or agency and do most or all of my volunteer work there. The reason I do as much volunteer work as I do is that I feel close to the other volunteers in the agency. Internalization: I am starting to understand that volunteer work at local agencies will not solve most social problems. I am starting to realize that many volunteer organizations simply 44
Page 45 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility put "band-aids" over social problems, rather than change them. At the end of the SSLI, students responded to two questions to assess their level of involvement in volunteer and service-learning activities. One item states "Please mark the following choice that best describes your level of volunteer activity." Students indicated one ofthe following responses: I have never participated in a fund-raising or volunteer activity in my life; I volunteer for fundraising or other activities from time to time; I volunteer consistently with an agency or organization (consistently may mean on a weekly or monthly basis, or you may help an organization consistently with a special event, such as the Special Olympics); My volunteer work goes beyond helping an organization: I am committed to a specific cause, like the environment, homelessness, illiteracy, etc., and I do what I can, when I can, for that cause. The second item says "Please choose the statement that best describes your level of involvement in the Center for Service Learning." Students chose one ofthe following options: I have participated with the Center for Service Learning both for course credit and as a volunteer; I have participated with the Center for Service Learning as a volunteer only; I have participated with the Center for Service Learning for course credit only; and I have never been involved with the Center for Service Learning. The items were included as grouping variables for contrasting group studies reported later in this article. Scale of Intellectual Development (SID). The SID (Erwin, 1981), based on Perry's (1970) intellectual development model, has 106 Likert-type items with three subscales related to the intellectual developmental stages of Dualism, Relativism, and Commitment. The SID has a fourth subscale, Empathy, which is related to Gilligan's work; it measures the degree to which people understand how their behavior affects others. Erwin (1981) calls the Empathy stage the "fourth and final stage" of intellectual development; however, he also reports a moderate, positive correlation between Empathy and Commitment, indicating that they are probably not mutually exclusive stages. Because Empathy is associated with Gilligan's work rather than with the Perry theory, and because the Empathy subscale is moderately related to the Commitment subscale, it will be assumed for the purposes of this research article that these subscales are measuring two, somewhat independent dimensions ofhigher levels of intellectual development. The SID manual (Erwin, 1981) cites alpha coefficients for the four subscales: Dualism,.81; Relativism,.70; Commitment,.76; and Empathy,.73. It also summarizes a considerable amount of validity evidence which includes theoretically predicted relationships between the subscales and class standing, high school GPA, participation in church and club activities, and measures of identity. Defining Issues Test (DIT). The DIT was developed by Rest (1990) as an objective measure of moral reasoning development as defined in Kohlberg's (1969) theory. In Kohlberg's theory, those who function at the highest level of moral reasoning use universal principals about human rights and responsibility to solve moral dilemmas. The P-score is the measure of the extent to which people use principled moral reasoning. The long version of the DIT was used on assessment day, which includes six moral dilemmas and 72 items. Examinees gave their resolution to each dilemma, then indicate the degree of importance of different factors in making that decision. Each item that measures the importance of these factors is associated with one of the six stages of Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Each item response is given a numerical value (0="no importance" to 5="of great importance"). The P-score is computed by summing their responses across the items associated with stages 5 and 6. The P-score was the only one used in this study because it is considered the general assessment of principled moral reasoning of the DIT and has the strongest psychometric qualities. The DIT manual (Rest, 1990) reviews reliability and validity studies conducted with the DIT. The P-score has shown both test-retest and internal consistency estimates in the.70s and.80s. The manual also reports data indicating the Pscores have shown expected differences across age groups and groups varying in education level. The test also has an average correlation of.50 with other tests of moral reasoning, including versions of Kohlberg's test. Measure of Moral Orientation (MOM). The MOM (Liddell, Halpin, & Halpin, 1992) measures two orientations toward moral decision making described by Gilligan (1982). Individuals with an orientation toward caring focus on how their moral decisions affect other people and interpersonal relationships. Those who have an orientation toward justice, focus on rights and 45
Page 46 Olney and Grande TABLE 1 Correlations among Attitudes Toward Volunteerism, SID, MOM, and DIT Subscales Scale Exploration Realization Internalization Exploration.03 -.36** Realization.58** SID-Dualism.38**.11 -.23** SID-Relativism.38**.06 -.11 SID-Commitment -.35**.09.34** SID-Empathy -.31**.39**.47** MOM-Caring.10.27**.19** DIT-P Score -.12.00.17** *significant at the.05 level **significant at the.01 level principles in moral decision-making. The orientation ofjustice is comparable to principled moral reasoning, described by Kohlberg (1969). The MOM is in the initial stages of development. It is comprised of four subscales. Two subscales measure students' self-report of their caring and theirjustice orientations through Likerttype attitudinal scales. The other two scales measure students' caring and justice orientations by assessing their reactions to a series of 10 moral dilemmas on a set of Likert-type scales. Using a format similar to that of the DIT, students weight the importance of a number of factors in solving the dilemma. These subscales are referred to as the Caring and Justice subscales. The reliability and validity evidence for the self-report scales and the Justice scale have proven to be problematic in unpublished data evaluation research conducted in the campus' student assessment office. Specifically, the alpha coefficients were below.60 for the self-report scales and the Justice Orientation scale correlated negatively with the P-scale on the Defining Issues Task. However, Liddell et al. (1992) reported an alpha reliability estimate of.84 for the Caring Orientation scale. They also reported that, when correlated with the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, the Caring Orientation subscale had a significant, positive correlation with Feeling and a significant, negative correlation with Thinking on the Feeling-Thinking measure of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Liddell et al., 1992). Therefore, a decision was made to include only the Caring Orientation subscale, comprised of 41 Likert-responses, in this validity study. Procedure The students were required to participate as part of the university's assessment program de signed to meet state-mandated outcomes assessment requirements. They completed the SSLI scale, along with the three other tests chosen for their theoretical continuity with the work ofPerry, Kohlberg, and Gilligan. Students were randomly assigned to several different batteries of tests. Those who were assigned to the battery of tests used in this study completed the four instruments in a 3-hour testing session. The session was proctored by trained test administrators. For the SSLI, SID, and MOM subscales, data was considered missing if a student completed less than 90% of the questions. For the DIT Pscore, the student's score was coded as missing if he or she scored above 7 on the DIT's meaningless scale, as recommended by the DIT manual (Rest, 1990). Results Reliability Internal consistency ofthe three SSLI subscales was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Alpha coefficients for the three subscales were.84 (Exploration),.70 (Real), and.74 (Internalization). Convergent and Divergent Validity Table 1 provides the r-values for intercorrelations among the three SSLI subscales and the correlations between subscales of the SSLI and other instruments. The following section will highlight the statistical trends that support the validity of the SSLI. Unless otherwise noted, all findings discussed in text are significant at least at the.05 level. Intercorrelations. The intercorrelations among 46
Page 47 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development ofSocial Responsibility the three SSLI subscales indicated that Exploration had no significant correlation with Realization (r=.03) and a significant, negative correlation with Internalization (r=-.36). Realization had a significant, positive correlation with Internalization (r=.58). Intellectual Development Scale. It was anticipated that the SSLI subscales that were associated with the lower phases of social responsibility development would have strong correlations with the SID subscales measuring the earlier stages of intellectual development; conversely, the Internalization subscale was expected to correlate with the SID subscales associated with later stages of intellectual development. The correlations supported the validity of the SSLI. As Table 1 shows, high scores on the Exploration subscale were associated with high scores on the Dualism (r=.38) and Relativism (r=.38) subscales as well as low scores on the Commitment (r=-.35) and Empathy (-.31) subscales. On the other hand, high scores on the Internalization subscale were negatively associated with scores on the Dualism subscale (r=-.23) and positively related to the Commitment (r-.34) and Empathy (r=.47) subscales of the SID. The Realization scale, which measures the middle phase of social responsibility development, had no reliable correlation with any of the SID subscales except Empathy (r=.39). Moral development measures. Based on the Delve et al. (1990) model, the Realization and Internalization subscales of the SSLI should have correlated more strongly with the P-score of the DIT and the Caring subscale ofthe MOM than the Exploration subscale. This pattern was found, as demonstrated in Table 1. The Exploration phase had a weak, nonsignificant correlation with Caring (r=. 10) and the P-score (r=-. 12). The Realization subscore, associated with the middle phase of social responsibility development, had a significant, positive relationship with the Caring subscale (r=.27) and no relationship with the TABLE 2 DIT's P-score (r=.00). Finally, the Internalization subscale correlated significantly with the Caring subscale (r=. 19) and the P-score (r=. 17). Contrasting Group Study One The students who completed the SSLI survey were asked to indicate their level of commitment to a social service organization or a social cause. They then were categorized into one of four groups: 'Never participate in volunteer activities;' 'Volunteer with a specific organization from time-to-time;' 'Volunteer consistently (e.g., weekly, monthly, or consistently with annual events like Special Olympics);' or 'Committed to a cause rather than an organization.' A one-way MANOVA, using the three subscales as the dependent measures and group (never, occasionally, consistently, cause-oriented) as the independent variable, was statistically significant (Wilkes lambda=.67, F(9, 676)=13.53, p <.001). Follow-up univariate F tests indicated that differences were significant at the.01 level for every scale: Exploration, F(3, 280)=23.99; Realization, F(3, 280)=8.95; Internalization, F(3, 280)=19.19. Table 2 shows the cell means for each univariate effect. The assumption in this study was that the levels of the independent variables represent differing degrees of involvement in volunteerism, with the "Never" level representing the lowest degree of involvement and "Cause-oriented" representing the highest degree. Consequently, the expectation was that the means for the Exploration subscale would decrease across the four conditions, while means for the Realization and Internalization subscales would increase. As the means listed in Table 2 show, this pattern did in fact emerge. Follow-up comparisons ofthe means for each univariate effect were conducted. The means for the "Never" and "Occasionally" groups were significantly higher than the means for the "Consistent" and "Cause-oriented" groups. The Scale Means for Contrasting Group Study 1: Level of Volunteer Involvement Groups Scale Never Occasional Consistent Cause-Oriented X SD X SD X SD X SD Exploration** 44.36 6.02 43.34 7.71 36.08 6.36 34.90 7.98 Realization** 33.54 6.64 35.89 5.46 38.22 3.68 39.80 4.50 Internal** 46.54 6.35 51.68 6.49 54.41 6.09 59.60 4.27 N 11 170 73 30 Wilkes Lambda=.69, F(9, 676)=13.53,p<.01 **Univariate F significant at the.01 level 47
Page 48 Olney and Grande TABLE 3 Scale Means for Contrasting Group Study 2: Experience with Center for Service Learning Type of Experience Scale Volunteer Volunteer For Credit None Only & For Credit Only X SD X SD X SD X SD Exploration** 35.68 7.47 36.06 8.05 42.24 7.90 41.81 7.84 Realization 38.68 5.80 37.79 3.56 35.40 6.78 36.55 5.10 Internal* 55.43 6.29 54.97 6.94 51.40 7.84 52.56 6.57 N 28 33 25 197 Wilkes Lambda=.88, F(9, 674)=3.95,p<.01 *Univariate F significant at the.05 level **Univariate F significant at the.01 level follow-up tests conducted on the Realization subscale showed the same pattern of group differences, with a reverse in the direction ofthe means: the "Consistent" and "Cause-oriented" group had significantly higher means than the "Occasionally" and "Never" group. The follow-up comparisons on the means for the Internalization subscale indicated a statistically significant increase across the four cells on this measure. Overall, this validity study indicated that the SSLI could detect different levels of social responsibility development across groups who had varying degrees of commitment to volunteer service. Contrasting Group Study Two A second contrasting-group study was conducted by examining the relationship between the phases of social responsibility development and type of participation with CSL. Four categories were used as the independent variable: No experience with CSL; experience as a requirement to complete an academic course; CSL experience as a volunteer; and CSL experience as a volunteer and as a course requirement. The data were analyzed again using a one-way MANOVA with the three subscales as the dependent variables and CSL experience (none, for credit, volunteer, both) as the independent variable. The model was statistically significant, Wilkes=.88, F(9,674)=3.95, p=.001. The univariate follow-up analyses indicated that differences were significant at the.05 level for the Exploration subscale F(3,279)=9.30, p<.001 and the Internalization subscale, F(3, 279)=2.93, p=.03. The univariate effect for the Realization subscale was not statistically significant, F(3, 279)=2.37, p=.07. These categories were chosen because the staff of the Center for Service Learning perceived that students who participate for credit are not as intrinsically motivated to service-learning as those who volunteer their time with the center. Students who participate as a course requirement, but continue on with the center after their course is completed, were considered by the staff to be intrinsically motivated by volunteer work as well. Therefore, for this study, the means on the Exploration subscale were expected to be higher for the "No experience" and "for credit" groups than for the "volunteer" and "both" group, while subscale means on the Realization and Internalization subscales were expected to be higher for the "volunteer" and "both" group. The means for each group on the three dependent measures are represented in Table 3. Follow-up comparisons of cell means indicated that the "No experience" and "for credit" group did have significantly higher means on the Exploration subscale than the "Volunteer" and "both" group, as predicted. The follow-up comparisons did not yield any differences among the cell means for the Internalization subscale, however, even though the univariate test was statistically significant. The comparisons were not conducted on the Realization subscale because the univariate effect was not statistically significant. However, as the means listed in Table 3 demonstrate, the means did follow the predicted trend. The groups who volunteered with CSL showed higher means on the Realization and Internalization subscales compared to the groups that did not volunteer. Overall, this last study lends considerable support to the validity of the SSLI. Discussion The current study presents strong psychometric support for the SSLI. Using well-validated instruments associated with the theories that served as the foundation of the service-learning model, this project produced validity evidence indicat 48
Page 49 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility ing that the scales measured the phases of servicelearing development as defined in the Delve et at. (1990) model. The intercorrelations among the SSLI subscales showed relationships that would be predicted from the model. For instance, the negative relationship between the Exploration and Internalization subscales is consistent with the model. The exploration stage is a fairly self-serving phase, where students are motivated by their peer groups and their desire to have a good time. One can understand how attitudes toward volunteerism among those in the Exploration phase would be the antithesis of attitudes among those in the Internalization phase, during which a complex understanding and aversion to social injustice has been internalized. The somewhat strong relationship between Realization and Internalization subscales would also be expected from the model. Students in the Internalization phase are distinguishable from those in the Realization phase primarily by their level of social awareness and understanding of the complexities of social injustice. However, the characteristics of volunteer activities for students in both phases may be comparable. Thus, the positive relationship between these two subscales supports the scale's validity. Correlations among the SID and SSLI subscales provide further validity support. The Exploration subscale correlated positively with the lower stages of intellectual development and negatively with higher stages. The Internalization subscale had the opposite pattern of relationships with the SID: it had negative relationships with the Dualism and Relativism subscales, but positive correlations with the Commitment and Empathy subscales. The Realization subscale, measuring the middle phase in which students are highly enmeshed with a particular organization and the clients, showed a positive relationship with the Empathy subscale. More validity evidence for the SSLI subscales was found when they were correlated with the moral reasoning scales. The model would suggest that students in the lowest phase of social responsibility development probably would have very unpredictable approaches to making moral decisions. The findings were consistent with this prediction: The relationship between the Exploration subscale and the MOM-Caring scale and DIT P-scores were low. Students in the realization phase are described in the model as focusing on the relationships with co-workers and clients in their volunteer agencies; however, the model would predict some naivete about justice issues during the realization phase. Consistent with this pattern, the Realization subscale correlated positively with the MOM-Caring scale, but had almost no relationship with the DIT P-score. Finally, the model indicates that students in the Internalization phase shift their focus from a commitment to specific agencies or organizations toward a commitment to fighting social injustice. One would expect a stronger emphasis onjustice in moral decision-making and a weaker emphasis on caring in this final phase of the model in the Internalization phase. In keeping with the model, the Internalization subscale had a stronger correlation with the DIT P-score and a weaker correlation with the MOM-Caring subscale, compared to the Realization subscale's relationships to these variables. Finally, the contrasting group studies supported the scale's construct validity. In general, the studies compared subscale scores of students who reported high levels of commitment to volunteer work compared to students who expressed little interest in service activities. Both studies found similarpatterns: students who reported more commitment to service had higher scores on the Realization and Internalization subscales; while those who reported little desire to do volunteer work or engaged in service sporadically or only for course credit tended to have higher scores on the Exploration subscale. In general, the scale was able to discriminate among groups of students with differing levels of commitment to volunteer work and social justice issues. The SSLI was developed to measure the phases of social responsibility development as specified by the Delve et al. (1990) service-learning model. It was designed to assist with validation of that model and for assessment of service-learning programs that are increasing in popularity across college campuses. While a number of instruments exist to measure some of the intellectual and moral developmental processes that go along with development of social responsibility, most coordinators of campus service-learning centers have a difficult time finding assessment instruments that specifically can measure their goals in the area of social justice and responsibility development. The SSLI was designed to fill this need. The scale has obvious applications for evaluation and outcomes assessment of service-learning programs. Ideally, students develop into more committed, concerned citizens who genuinely 49
Page 50 Olney and Grande care about the complexities of social injustice. For programs targeting outcomes discussed in the service-learning model, this instrument can document such changes. The scale also can be applied toward further validation and exploration of the Delve et al. (1990) model. The authors themselves discuss the need to test the model for its applicability to minority groups. This tool can help with that goal. Finally, while the survey was not specifically designed for diagnostic purposes, it could serve as a guide to the campus service-learning coordinator who must counsel and support student volunteers. Because many centers for service-learning work with academic departments to coordinate activities that are required of students, students at varying levels of social responsibility development are likely to pass through the service-learning center. This may help the coordinator identify which students are in the initial phases of development and would benefit from being introduced to a broader range of volunteer activities. Possibly this instrument will help coordinators clarify which students are in the mid-phases of development and may need help to connect their experiences to social injustice. Students in the last phases of the model may benefit from guidance in re-evaluation of their career goals to incorporate their values regarding social responsibility. The national interest in service has increased over the years and service-learning is likely to remain a key experiential learning component of college and university settings. The service-learning model has contributed a great deal to the field by defining the process of social responsibility development and the role that campus servicelearning centers play in that process. However, a need exists for methods and instruments with which to conduct service-learning research. The SSLI makes an important contribution in the area of service-learning through its application in theory-building, applied research and evaluation, and education. Notes The authors would like to thank the staff at the Center for Service Learning and Office of Student Assessment for their support and assistance with this project. 1 The SSLI is currently under revision and the next version shouldbe available by early summer 1996. We are currently testing new items with the goal of creating more independence between the Realization and Internalization subscales. A second goal is to shorten the instrument to approximately 50 items. The new version of the SSLI will be made available to researchers or program evaluators with the agreement that data will be sent to the first author for inclusion in validity studies. For permission to use the original version published here, please write to the first author at James Madison University, Office of Student Assessment, Harrisonburg, VA 22801 (email: [email protected]). A scoring key for the instrument will be sent upon written request. References Delve, C.L., Mintz, S.D., & Stewart, G.M. (1990). Promoting values development though community service: A design. New Directionsfor Student Services (no. 4), 7-29. Erwin, T.D. (1983). The Scale ofIntellectual Development: Measuring Perry's scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 6-12. Erwin, T.D. (1981). The Scale ofintellectual Development Manual. Harrisonburg, VA: Developmental Analytics. Giles, D.W., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students' personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327-339. Giles, D., Honnet, E.P., & Migliore, S. (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learning in the 1990s. Raleigh, N.C.: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women 's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gitlin, T. (1994, summer). '60s versus '90s: Blurring the lines of service and activism. Who Cares. pp. 28 -30. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (ed.), Handbook ofsocialization theory and research. New York: Rand McNally. Liddell, D.L., Halpin, G., & Halpin, W.G. (1992). The Measure of Moral Orientation: Measuring the ethics of care and justice. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 325-330. Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Rest, J. (1990). Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Ethical Development. 50
Page 51 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility Authors CYNTHIA OLNEY is an assistant assessment specialist and assistant professor of psychology at James Madison University. She conducts student outcomes assessment for the divisions of student affairs and academic affairs. Her doctoral training is in human learning and development and she currently teaches graduate classes in statistical methods and measurement. STEVE GRANDE formerly was the assistant coordinator for the JMU Center for Service Learning and is currently working on a doctorate in College Student Personnel at the University of Maryland, College Park. 51
Page 52 Olney and Grande Appendix Scale of Service Learning Involvement Cynthia Olney and Steve Grande Copyright, 1994, James Madison University The following statements ask about your feelings about doing volunteer work, which includes anything from fundraising for an organization like the American Heart Association to directly working at a local agency to writing editorials for causes that you care about. In statements that refer to your peer group, please think of any group of people with whom you associate the most such as a fraternity, sorority, church group, or dorm hall. In statements that ask about "recent" feelings, please indicate the extent to which you have noticed such feelings within the last six months. Please indicate your attitudes by marking the following. (A) = Strongly reflects my feelings about volunteer work (B) = Somewhat reflects my feelings about volunteer work (C) = Does not much reflect my feelings about volunteer work (D) = Does not at all reflect my feelings about volunteer work 1. I would be involved in my volunteer activities whether or not I had friends working with me. 2. My main reason for participating in a volunteer activity is to have fun. 3. My volunteer experience has changed the way I think about spending money. 4. I choose my volunteer work based on what members of my peer group decide to do. 5. There are so many places and people that need my help, I'm not sure that I have the energy to do all I should do. 6. I prefer to do volunteer activities that require a short-term commitment. 7 I am starting to realize that many volunteer organizations simply put "bandaids" over social problems, rather than change them. 8. I don't always feel comfortable talking about my volunteer activities with my family or some friends because I'm not sure they will understand my commitment. 9. The last time I volunteered to help with a group I did so mainly because volunteers got something fun, like a t-shirt. 10. The people who benefit from my volunteer activities have as much or more to offer me as I have to offer them. 11. A main reason I participate in my volunteer activities is that I have a good relationship with the agency supervisors. 12. My main responsibility toward disadvantaged people is to work toward changing social systems that cause them to be disadvantaged. 13. The last time I volunteered to help an agency was the only time I did anything for that organization. 14. I am starting to realize how much I can learn through my volunteer work. 15. Helping to raise money for charitable organizations is just as important as working more directly and consistently with a charitable organization. 16. I have been amazed at what I can learn from people I consider to be "underprivileged." 17. I doubt that my volunteer work will ever have much effect on my career goals. 18. I would be more likely to volunteer to help with a fund raiser if I knew it was going to help an agency or organization with which I am personally involved. 19. My decision to continue volunteering with a particular organization is determined by whether my peer group is continuing the activity. 20. I feel very loyal toward one particular organization or agency and do most or all of my volunteer work there. 21. One of the more important reasons I do volunteer work is to have fun with my friends. 22. My volunteer work has made me more aware of how unfair life can be to some people. 23. I often find myself explaining to my friends about why I think my volunteer work is important. 24. I would rather do a volunteer activity with my friends than without them. 52
Page 53 Validation of a Scale to Measure Development of Social Responsibility 25. I often read news articles about social problems in which I am involved. 26. Most (or all) of my volunteer efforts involve raising money for charitable or nonprofit organizations. 27 My participation in my volunteer activities has caused me to change how I treat other people. 28. My involvementinvolunteer work has caused me to take voting very seriously. 29. There are so many places and causes that need volunteer help that I sometimes feel confused about where I should help. 30. I have done a number of class papers about a particular social issue that concerns me. 31. I prefer to work with local agencies, so my efforts benefit people from my community. 32. I hate the terms "disadvantaged," "needy," or "underprivileged" people. 33. I realize that the causes of most social issues are very complex. 34. I believe it takes more than time, money, and community efforts to change social problems; we also need to work for change at a national or global level. 35. I doubt that I would have done my last volunteer activity if my peer group had not taken it on as a service project. 36. One reason that I do as much volunteer work as I do is that I feel close to the other volunteers in the agency. 37. Although I think it is important to raise money to help needy people, 1 am not personally interested in working directly with such people. 38. I think carefully about giving money to organizations; I want my money to get to the root of social problems. 39. I would not change my volunteer activities even if my parents or friends disapproved. 40. My major responsibility toward homeless people is to not harm them or harass them in any way. 41. I am starting to understand that volunteer work at local agencies will not solve most social problems. 42. I often examine my motives for being involved with certain social issues to be sure I am not involved for selfish reasons. 43. My main responsibility toward disadvantaged people is to provide help through regular contributions of my time and efforts. 44. I prefer not to make long-term commitments to any one agency or social cause. 45. I think about social justice and how I can make a difference. 46. I choose my volunteer work based on an issue about which I feel very strongly. 47. It doesn't matter much what agency I do fundraising for, as long as that agency is doing something positive. 48. I can learn from the people who benefit from my volunteer efforts. 49. While I enjoy having positive relationships with other volunteers who are working for the same issue as I am, 1 would still pursue this volunteer activity even if I had to do it alone. 50. I would be more likely to participate in a volunteer activity if I thought I could meet people my own age. 51. I sometimes feel overwhelmed by how frustrating volunteer work can be. 52. I sometimes think some agencies that focus on social issues are creating more social problems. 53. I often think about my own stereotypes. 54. I would be more likely to participate in a volunteer activity if it didn't require more than a few hours of my time. 55. I participate in service projects because I understand how important the service is to those needing it. 56. I believe that I will be involved in social justice issues for the rest of my life. 57. Iusually feel overwhelmed at the complexity of social problems like homelessness and hunger. 58. I volunteer for activities that are more fun than they are serious. 59. I feel I am more committed to a social issue than to a social or community agency. 60. If I missed a volunteer activity, I would feel bad primarily because I had let my peer group down. 61. I probably am most motivated to do my volunteer work because I personally know the people who benefit from my services. 62. I do as much volunteer work as I do because I am committed to fighting social injustice. 63. I think that people like me who are more fortunate in life need to help less fortunate people with their needs and problems. 64. While my volunteer work can be frustrating at times, I seldom feel overwhelmed by that frustration anymore. 53
