Psychometric Properties of the Reidenbach–Robin Multidimensional Ethics Scale

Abstract

The factor structure of the Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES; Reidenbach and Robin: 1988 , Journal of Business Ethics 7, 871–879; 1990 , Journal of Business Ethics 9, 639–653) was examined for the 8-item short form (NÂ =Â 328) and the original 30-item pool (NÂ =Â 260). The objectives of the study were: to verify the dimensionality of the MES; to increase the amount of true cross-scenario variance through the use of 18 scenarios varying in moral intensity (Jones: 1991 , Academy of Management Review 16, 366–395); and, to examine the items for measurement precision using item-response theory (IRT) methods. Results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis failed to conclusively support the hypothesized 3- (short form) or 5-factor (long form) structure; both instruments were instead dominated by a general factor. Item response theory analyses using Samejima’s ( 1969 , Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 34, (4, Pt. 2)) graded response model revealed that many items in the 30-item pool performed very well, and suggested that a different collection of items be used to form a short-form version of the MES. Our proposed 10-item instrument includes more discriminating items than the 8-item version, and has the added advantage of including two items from each of the five ethical philosophies represented in the original 30-item pool. Copyright Springer 2007ethical decision-making, ethical judgment, factor analysis, multidimensional ethics scale,

Ethical Judgments: What Do We Know, Where Do We Go?

“…Investigators often seem inclined to respond to a general absence of meaningful research findings by attempting to "fine-tune" the measures of ethical judgments and to create combinations of survey items that differ from those presented in the 1990 version of the MES (see Table 1; e.g., Hansen, 1992;Kujala, 2001;Kujala and Pietilainen, 2007;Kujala, Lamsa, and Penttila, 2011;McMahon and Harvey, 2007b). Researcher tendencies to report detailed results of factor analyses of ethical judgments survey items, or even to refer to such analyses in passing (e.g., Tansey, Hyman, and Brown, 1992; fifty relevant studies are identified in the list of references), also seemingly suggests an ongoing search for the "correct" item combinations or a "better" measure.…”

The limits of deontology in dental ethics education

“…The Multidimensional Ethics Scale has been used frequently in business ethics and is validated for multiple professions (Cohen et al 1996, Cohen et al 1993Flory et al 1992Flory et al , 1993McMahon and Harvey 2007)). Although the vignettes of the current study differed from those used in business ethics, the instrument was not modified or adapted in any way and included items relating to justice, egoism, utilitarianism, deontology, and the ethics of care (Cohen et al 2001).…”

The development and initial validation of the work convictions questionnaire (WCQ) to measure approaches to ethical decision making in the workplace: Part 2

“…In the original development of the scale (MES-30), five ethical approaches, namely justice, relativism, deontology, utilitarianism, and egoism were measured using 30 items. By means of exploratory factor analysis, Reidenbach and Robin also developed an eight-item short form scale (MES-8) that measures three ethical decision-making approaches, namely moral equity, relativism, and contractualism (McMahon & Harvey, 2007). The factor structures of both the MES-8 and the original 30-item pool were examined by McMahon and Harvey (2007), in order to verify the dimensionality thereof.…”