Abstract:For a century, developmental psychology, and psychology as a whole, has been caught in an objectivity-validity dilemma which divides the scientific community: when measuring psychological traits, researchers either strive for objectivity at the expense of validity in regard to the object of the measurement, or they strive for validity by using subjective information from participants and subjective methods of rating this information, thus lacking objectivity. While the main problem of physical measurement is precision, the main problem of psychology is validity: does an instrument really measure what it should? On the one hand, psychologists like Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg believed that valid inferences on psychological functioning can only be made through subjective methods like clinical interviews – at the expense of objectivity. On the other hand, scientists working in the tradition of Louis Leon Thurston and Karl Pearson wanted to turn psychology into an objective science by assessing psychological traits through behavioral data even if that meant deleting important psychological traits like moral orientations and moral competence from the scientific research agenda. In this article I will show that this methodological dilemma can be (and has been) resolved on the basis of the ideas of Franciscus Cornelis Donders (1868), who, a long time ago, showed how we can study internal mental processes in an objective way, that is, without relying on the subjective experience of the participant and without subjective scoring. Interestingly, Donders used behavioral dilemmas in order to measure thinking. It took us a long time to understand the significance of Donders’ invention and to apply it to psychological measurement. Our Moral Competence Test (MCT) is probably the first method of psychological measurement based on it. The MCT has helped us to test many hypotheses on moral orientations and moral competence objectively, which hitherto could be studied only with subjective methods. It has also made possible to design and evaluate new, effective methods of moral education.

Does Moral Education Improve Moral Judgment? A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies Using the Defining Issues Test

Moral Education: An Evaluation of the Effect of Moral Dilemma Discussions for Sixth Graders

Moral Judgement Development in Higher Education: Insights from the Defining Issues Test

Effects of a deliberate moral education program on parents of elementary school students

The Defining Issues Test and the Four Component Model: Contributions to professional education

Reexamining the “Discussion” in the Moral Dilemma Discussion

Insights From the Defining Issues Test on Moral Reasoning Competencies Development in Community Pharmacists

How not to evaluate a psychological measure: Rebuttal to criticism of the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development by Curzer and colleagues

Evaluating moral reasoning in nursing education

Improving moral reasoning among college students: a game-based learning approach

Moral rationality and intuition: An exploration of relationships between the Defining Issues Test and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire

Teaching strategies for moral education: a review

From Donders’ Dilemma to Objective Internal Assessment: How Experimental Developmental Psychology Can Contribute to Moral Education

Does environmental education benefit environmental outcomes in children and adolescents? A meta-analysis

“Intermediate” Concepts and the Connection to Moral Education

Disagreement, justification, and equitable moral judgments: A brief training study

Meta-analysis of Interventions for Monitoring Accuracy in Problem Solving

Influences of past moral behavior on future behavior: A review of sequential moral behavior studies using meta-analytic techniques.

Stages of moral judgment development: Applying item response theory to Defining Issues Test data

Teaching morality as an inclusive competence in higher education: Effects of dilemma discussion and contribution of empathy

Principle-based structured case discussions: do they foster moral competence in medical students? - A pilot study