Development and Validation of Openness to Violation of Ethical Decisions Scale
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Openness to Violation of Ethical Decision (OVED) scale, which measures teachers’ openness to violation of their own ethical decision under the influence of key constituencies at the school including students, managers, colleagues and parents. In the development process, reviewing the related literature, gathering expert opinions, conducting interviews with teachers were respectively followed in the respective order. The resulting two level (high and low moral intensity conditions) scale form was subjected to a pilot study with 176 teachers. Two separate exploratory factor analyses (EFA) on low and high moral intensity dimensions of the scale suggested a robust four factor solutions explaining more than70 percent of the variance on both parts. In order to verify the four factor solution, a second study with 508 teachers was conducted. Because of violating the normality assumption, Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was conducted. At first, the reliability of the scale was checked by Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability values. Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than .88 and Composite Reliability values were all higher than .90 for each of the four factors, indicating high reliability. Finally, the results of PLS-SEM values on convergent and discriminant validity revealed high levels of convergent validity and discriminant validity scores for both parts of the scale, which affirmed the validity of the scale.
Keywords
Moral reasoning,Violating ethical decisions,Ethic,Openness to violation to ethical decisions
References
- Barrett, D. E., Casey, J. E., Visser, R. D., & Headley, K. N. (2012). How do teachers make judgments about ethical and unethical behaviors? Toward the development of a code of conduct for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 890-898.
- Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(4), 265-280.
- Brabeck, M. M., Rogers, L. A., Sirin, S., Henderson, J., Benvenuto, M., Weaver, M., & Ting, K. (2000). Increasing ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance in schools: Development of the Racial Ethical Sensitivity Test. Ethics & Behavior, 10(2), 119-137.
- Detert, J. J., Treviňo, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 93(2), 374-391.
- Ferrell, O. C. & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing. 49(Summer), 87–96.
- Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision models for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 9(2), 55-64.
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
- Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
- Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8thed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Gifford, N. K. T. (1992). The relationship of moral reasoning level of instructors to their teaching style and adult student perception of the learning environment (unpublished dissertation). Faculty of the Graduate College in the University of Nebraska.