Advertisement

Values in action inventory of strengths: Development and validation of short form-72 in Urdu

  • Afifa AnjumEmail author
  • Naumana Amjad
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) has been established as a key measure for assessment of character strengths and virtues. However its use in multiple measure studies is problematic due to its length. The present study developed a short form of the VIA, VIA-72-Urdu, in Pakistani context and conducted its first validation. Items in short form were retained on the basis of high factor loadings to respective strengths and finalized after verification of cultural validity. The new measure VIA-72-Urdu yielded acceptable reliabilities for research purpose (r values ranging from .64 to .78). Strengths correlated positively with positive affect (median r = .22) and life satisfaction (median r = .20) and negatively with negative affect (median r = −.19). Four factors were derived after exploratory factor analysis and factor structure invariance with long form was determined through multi group confirmatory factor analysis. All virtue factors were positively related with extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience and negatively related with neuroticism. Agreeableness was only negatively related with virtue factor of cognitive strengths (median absolute r between virtues and big five traits = .37). The new measure, VIA-72-Urdu provides basis for validation of the same in other languages. The VIA-72 will facilitate future research and assessment on character strengths and virtues.

Keywords

Values in action inventory of strengths VIA-72 Short form Validation Urdu 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Values in Action Institute (VIA) for providing access and permissions for use of the instruments.

Funding

This study was funded by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (Indigenous Scholarship Phase II, Grant No: 2Ss1–199).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amjad, N., & Misbah, F. (2014). Quest towards the core of selfhood. Islamic Studies, 53(3–4), 201–221.Google Scholar
  2. Anjum, A. & Amjad, N. (2017). Values in action inventory of strengths: Translation into Urdu, validation and factor structure exploration. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A. & Mullainathan, S (2010). The shape of temptation: Implications for the economic lives of the poor. NBER Working Paper No. 15973.Google Scholar
  4. Basto, M., & Pereira, J. M. (2012). An SPSS R-menu for ordinal factor analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 46(4), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. Brdar, I., & Kashdan, T. B. (2010). Character strengths and wellbeing in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 151–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.001.
  7. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodnessof-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.Google Scholar
  9. Courtney, M. G. R. (2013). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R-Menu v2.0 to make more judicious estimations. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 18(8), 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Dahlsgaard, K. K. (2005). Is virtue more than its own reward? Character strengths and their relation to well -being in a prospective longitudinal study of middle school -aged adolescents" (January 1, 2005). Dissertations available from ProQuest. Paper AAI3179723. http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3179723
  11. Dee Leersnyder, J., Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2013). Cultural regulation of emotion: Individual, relational, and structural sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 55.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinno, A. (2009). Exploring the sensitivity of Horn’s parallel analysis to the distributional form of random data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(3), 362–388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902938969.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Duan, W., Ho, S. M. Y., Yu, B., Tang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, T., & Yuen, T. (2012). Factor structure of the Chinese virtues questionnaire. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 680–688.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512450074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.Google Scholar
  17. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Herzberg, P. Y., & Brähler, E. (2006). Assessing the big-five personality domains via short forms: A cautionary note and a proposal. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan, Z. H., Watson, P. J., Naqvi, A. Z., Jahan, K., & Chen, Z. J. (2015). Muslim experiential religiousness in Pakistan: Meaning in life, general well-being and gender differences. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 18(6), 482–491.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2015.1079602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Littman-Ovadia, H. (2015). Short form of the VIA inventory of strengths: Construction and initial tests of reliability and validity. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 2(4), 229–237.Google Scholar
  22. Lybbert, T. J., & Wydick, B. (2016). Poverty, Aspirations, and the Economics of Hope. University of California: Davis Working Paper.Google Scholar
  23. Macdonald, C., Bore, M., & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the big 5: An empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 787–799.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2007). Brief versions of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGrath, R. E. (2014). Scale- and item-level factor analysis of the VIA inventory of strengths. Assessment, 21, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrath, R. E. (2015a). Character strengths in 75 nations: An update. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.888580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGrath, R. E. (2015b). Integrating psychological and cultural perspectives on virtue: The hierarchical structure of character strengths. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(5), 407–424.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moholy, M., Prause, N., Proudfit, G. H., Rahman, A., & Fong, T. (2015). Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, predicts self-regulation of sexual arousal. Cognition and Emotion, 29(8), 1505–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.993595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oettingen, G., Kappes, H. B., Guttenberg, K. B., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). Self-regulation of time management: Mental contrasting with implementation intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 218–229.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A classification and handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson, C., Park, N., Pole, N., D’Andrea, W., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Strengths of character and post-traumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 214–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212.Google Scholar
  34. Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2010). Adaptation and validation of the German version of the values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryser, V. A. (2015). Psychometric Properties of Extra-Short Big Five Personality Measures in multi-Topic Surveys: Documenting Personality Traits in the SHP and MOSAiCH (FORS Working PAPERS 2015-5). Available online at: http://forscenter.ch/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FORS_WPS_2015-05_Ryser.pdf.
  36. Shryack, J., Steger, M. F., Krueger, R. F., & Kallie, C. S. (2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 714–719.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singh, K. & Choubisa, R. (2009). Psychometric properties of Hindi translated version of Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS). Journal of Indian Health Psychology, 4(1), 65–76.Google Scholar
  38. Singh, K., & Choubisa, R. (2010). Empirical validation of values in action-inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in Indian context. National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India Psychological Studies, 55(2), 151–158.Google Scholar
  39. Topolewska, E., Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiski, T. (2014). The short IPIP-BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the big five. Annals of Psychology, 17(2), 385–402.Google Scholar
  40. Van Eeden, C., Wissing, M. P., Dreyer, J., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). Validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth among South African learners. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Velicer, W.F. & Jackson, D.N. (1990) Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some Further Observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_12Google Scholar
  43. Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41–71). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vincent, N. G., Cao, M., Marsh, H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). The factor structure of the values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): An item-level exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) bifactor analysis. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000396.
  45. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied PsychologyUniversity of the PunjabLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations