Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 1 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
| Item Response Theory | 2 |
| Comparative Analysis | 1 |
| Computer Assisted Testing | 1 |
| Correlation | 1 |
| Decision Making | 1 |
| Difficulty Level | 1 |
| Ethics | 1 |
| Graduate Students | 1 |
| Likert Scales | 1 |
| Measures (Individuals) | 1 |
| Moral Development | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Author
| Boom, Jan | 1 |
| Brugman, Daniel | 1 |
| Iran-Nejad, Asghar | 1 |
| Thoma, Stephen | 1 |
| Thoma, Stephen J. | 1 |
| Xu, Yuejin | 1 |
| van den Enden, Thijs | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
| Higher Education | 2 |
| Postsecondary Education | 2 |
Audience
Location
| Alabama | 1 |
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
| Defining Issues Test | 2 |
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Direct linkvan den Enden, Thijs; Boom, Jan; Brugman, Daniel; Thoma, Stephen – Journal of Moral Education, 2019
The Defining Issues Test (DIT) has been the dominant measure of moral development. The DIT has its roots in Kohlberg's original stage theory of moral judgment development and asks respondents to rank a set of stage typed statements in order of importance on six stories. However, the question to what extent the DIT-data match the underlying stage…
Descriptors: Measures (Individuals), Moral Development, Moral Values, Values
Xu, Yuejin; Iran-Nejad, Asghar; Thoma, Stephen J. – Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2007
The purpose of the study was to determine comparability of an online version to the original paper-pencil version of Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT2). This study employed methods from both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). Findings from CTT analyses supported the reliability and discriminant validity of both versions.…
Descriptors: Computer Assisted Testing, Test Format, Comparative Analysis, Test Theory
