Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Professional ethics in pharmacy practice: developing a psychometric measure of moral reasoning

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Pharmacy World & Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 October 2009

Abstract

Objective To develop and validate a psychometric measure of cognitive moral development in professional ethics in pharmacy. Setting Pharmacy practice in Australia. Method A psychometric instrument, the Professional Ethics in Pharmacy (PEP) test, was developed and validated following a systematic procedure. The theoretical foundation of the instrument was based on a hypothesised theory of cognitive moral development in professional ethics, which was integrated into a selection of scenarios experienced in practice by pharmacists in NSW, Australia. The PEP, along with the well established DIT test, was mailed in the form of a questionnaire to a randomly selected sample of 1,500 practising pharmacists. Data collected from returned questionnaires were statistically analysed to establish validity and reliability of the instrument. Main outcome measures The P-score calculated for each participant from DIT and PEP data and defined as a measure of principled moral reasoning, represented the main outcome measure for statistical testing. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine the strength of the relationship of the PEP with the DIT (regarded as the “gold standard”) in order to establish criterion and concurrent validity. Factor analysis was used to investigate construct validity. Cronbach’s Alpha, a measure of reliability of the instrument, was used for indicating internal consistency. Linear regression models further investigated construct validity in relation to predictors of moral reasoning. Results Face and content validity were established by pilot and peer review. Pearson’s coefficient of 0.53 indicated an acceptable level of concurrent validity. Factor analysis yielded factors closely related to the theoretical stages of cognitive moral development hypothesised, which indicated construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75 demonstrated the reliability of the instrument, and linear regression models provided further evidence of construct validity. The PEP was established as a robust instrument on several dimensions of validity and reliability. Conclusion The validated PEP test has the potential to provide the pharmacy profession with valuable information for use education and research. The validation process also provided evidence supporting the hypothesis that moral reasoning in professional ethics in pharmacy is a developmental process, which has profound implications for furthering the understanding of professional behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Darvall L. Medicine, law and social change: the impact of bioethics, feminism and rights movements on medical decision-making. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing; 1993. ISBN 1885210770.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wingfield J, Bissell P, Anderson C. The scope of pharmacy ethics—an evaluation of the international research literature, 1990–2002. Soc Sci Med.. 2004;58:2383–96. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooper R, Bissell P, Wingfield J. A new prescription for empirical ethics research in pharmacy: a critical review of the literature. J Med Ethics.. 2007;33:82–6. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.015297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mitcham C. Ethics overview. In: Mitcham C, editor. Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA; 2005. p. 700–4. ISBN 0028659910(ebook).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sidgwick H. Practical ethics: a collection of addresses and essays. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1898. ISBN 1570851131 (CD Rom).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Code of Professional Conduct. Canberra: The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia [online] 1998. [cited 15 Jan 2009] Available from: URL: http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=628.

  7. Royal Pharmaceutical Society G. Britain. Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2005. ISBN 0853696802.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Salek S, Edgar A. Pharmaceutical ethics. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2002. ISBN 0471490571.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Savulescu J. Festschrift edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics in honour of Raanan Gillon: promoting respect for the four principles remains of great practical importance in ordinary medicine. J Med Ethics.. 2003;29:265–7. doi:10.1136/jme.29.5.265.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. ISBN 0195143310.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jonsen A. Clinical ethics and the four principles. In: Gillon R, editor. Principles of health care ethics. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1994. p. 13–21. ISBN 0471930334.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jonsen A. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. ISBN 0195103254.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tassy S, Coz PL, Wicker B. Current knowledge in moral cognition can improve medical ethics. J Med Ethics.. 2008;34:679–82. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.018812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knapp D. Ethical pharmacy practice: prospects for the future. In: Buerki R (chairman). Proceedings of the Symposium presented at a joint session of the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy and the APhA Academy of Pharmacy Practice: The challenges of ethics in pharmacy practice. Madison, Wisconsin; 1985. p. 33–38. ISBN 0931292158 Publication No. 8 (New Series).

  15. Betan EJ. Toward a hermeneutic model of ethical decision making in clinical practice. Ethics Behav. 1997;7(4):347–65. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb0704_6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haddad A, editor. Teaching and learning strategies in pharmacy ethics. 2nd ed. New York: The Pharmaceutical Products Press; 1997. ISBN 0789003783.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gettman D, Arneson D. Pharmacoethics—A problem-based approach. Florida: CRC Press; 2003. ISBN 1587160358.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. The Pharmacy Law and Ethics Resource Centre [online]. London, UK: Pharmacy Law and Ethics Association; 2006 [cited 15 Jan 2009]. Available from URL: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pharmacy/applet/index.html.

  19. Buerki RA, Vottero LD. Ethical responsibility in pharmacy practice. Madison, Wisconsin: American Institute of the History of Pharmacy; 1994. ISBN 0931292255.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen S. The nature of moral reasoning: the framework and activities of ethical deliberation, argument and decision-making. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press; 2004. ISBN 0195514793.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grace D, Cohen S. Business ethics-problems and cases. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2005. ISBN 019551727.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Figurski TJ. Moral development. In: Borgatta EF, editor. Encyclopedia of sociology. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA; 2001. p. 1894–906. ISBN 002865899.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Flanagan O. Moral development. In: Craig E, editor. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge; 1998. [Cited 14 Jan 2009]. Available from URL: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/W027. ISBN 0415073103.

  24. Hare RM. Moral thinking: its levels, methods and point. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981. ISBN 0198246595.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In: Goslin DA, editor. Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1969. p. 347–480.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beauchamp TL. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. J Med Ethics. 2003;29((Festschrift)):269–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1976. ISBN 0674880102.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rest J. Cognitive development. In: Mussen P, Flavell J, Markman E, editors. Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3. New York: Wiley; 1983. p. 24–40. ISBN 0471090646 (v. 3).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thomas RM. An integrated theory of moral development. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1997. ISBN 0313301301.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kohlberg L. Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive development approach. In: Lickona T, editor. Moral development and behaviour: theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston; 1976. ISBN 0030028116.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rest J, Narvaez D, Bebeau M, Thoma SA. Neo-Kohlbergian approach: the DIT and schema theory. Educ Psychol Rev. 1999;11(4):291–324. doi:10.1023/A:1022053215271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pritchard MS. Kohlbergian contributions to educational programs for the moral development of professionals. Educ Psychol Rev. 1999;11(4):395–409. doi:10.1023/A:1022013501159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rest J, Narvaez D, editors. Moral development in the professions: psychology and applied ethics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994. ISBN 0805815384.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rest J. Moral development: advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger; 1986. ISBN 0275922545.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hampshire S, editor. Public and private morality. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1978. ISBN 052122084X.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chang F. The development of a test of teacher’s moral reasoning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 1993). In: Rest J, Narvaez D, editors. Moral development in the professions: psychology and applied ethics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994. p. 71–83. 0805815384.

  37. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Yamoor CM. Measuring the ethical sensitivity of dental students. J Dent Educ. 1985;49(4):225–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoffmann J, Sprague J. Exploring alternate perspectives on fairness to help TAs develop course policies and manage student challenges. Paper presented at: Third National Conference on TA training and employment; 1991. Austin, TX.

  39. Crisham P. Measuring moral judgment in nursing dilemmas. Nurs Res. 1981;30(2):104–10. doi:10.1097/00006199-198103000-00012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chaar B, Brien J, Krass I. Professional ethics in pharmacy: the Australian experience. IJPP.. 2005;13:195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hibbert D, Rees J, Smith I. Ethical awareness of community pharmacists. IJPP.. 2000;8:82–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fink J. Applied ethics in pharmacy practice. In: Buerki R (chairman). Proceedings of the Symposium presented at a joint session of the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy and the APhA Academy of Pharmacy Practice: the challenges of ethics in pharmacy practice. Madison, Wisconsin; 1985. p. 23–30. ISBN 0931292158 Publication No. 8 (New Series).

  43. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1992. ISBN 0805810625.

    Google Scholar 

  44. De Vaus DA. Surveys in social research. St. Leonards: Allen and Unwin; 1995. ISBN 1863739394.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1978. ISBN 0471323543.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Litwin MS. How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. ISBN 0803957041.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Francis G. Introduction to SPSS for Windows: Versions 12.0 and 11. 4th ed. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia; 2004. ISBN 174103334.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston, USA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. ISBN 0321056779.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Evens J. Indexing moral judgment using multidimensional scaling. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1995). In: Barnett R, Evens J, Rest J, editors. Faking moral judgment on the Defining Issues Test. Br J Soc Psychol. 1995;34:267–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Productivity Commission. Australia’s health workforce. Canberra, ACT: Productivity Commission Research Report; 2005. ISBN 1740371895.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (A.I.H.W). Pharmacy labour force to 2001. Canberra, ACT: AIHW; 2003. (National Health Labour Force Series no. 25) ISSN 1327-4309; ISBN 174024 256 4.

  52. Fink A. How to analyze survey data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. ISBN 0803973861.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the participating pharmacists in NSW Australia

Funding

This study was supported by an unconstrained Education and Research grant from the Pharmacy Board of NSW.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Room N508-Bldg A15, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Betty Bouad Chaar

Authors
  1. Betty Bouad Chaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Betty Bouad Chaar.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-009-9320-1

Appendix 1. The professional ethics in pharmacy test (PEP)©

Appendix 1. The professional ethics in pharmacy test (PEP)©

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaar, B.B. Professional ethics in pharmacy practice: developing a psychometric measure of moral reasoning. Pharm World Sci 31, 439–449 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-009-9292-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-009-9292-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation