In a 2014 paper in Theory and Research in Education, Howard Curzer and colleagues critique the Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development according to eight criteria that are described as difficulties any measure of educational outcomes must address. This article highlights how Curzer et al. do not consult existing empirical evidence, misunderstand the model and method associated with the Defining Issues Test, and thereby reach conclusions that are unwarranted, incomplete, and ultimately indefensible. To address these shortcomings, we present an overview of the Defining Issues Test and note relevant criteria for evaluating a measure of moral judgment development.
BebeauMThomaSJ (1999) ‘Intermediate’ concepts and the connection to moral education. Educational Psychology Review11: 343–360.
2.
BlasiA (1980) Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin88: 593–637.
3.
CurzerHJSattlerSDuPreeDG. (2014) Do ethics classes teach ethics?Theory and Research in Education12(3): 366–382.
4.
KohlbergL (1981) Essays on Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice, vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
5.
NarvaezDBockT (2002) Moral schemas and tacit judgement or how the Defining Issues Test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education31(3): 297–314.
6.
RestJR (1979) Developing in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
RestJR (1982) A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics: Moral development and moral education. The Hastings Center Report12(1): 29–36.
8.
RestJR (1983) Morality. In: MussenP (Ed) Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, fourth edition, volume on cognitive development, FlavellJMarkmanE (Volume Eds). New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 556–629.
9.
RestJR (1986) Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Praeger.
10.
RestJRNarvaezDBebeauM. (1999a) A neo-Kohlbergian approach to moral judgment: An overview of Defining Issues Test research. Educational Psychology Review11(4): 291–324.
11.
RestJRNarvaezDBebeauM. (1999b) Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
RestJRNarvaezDThomaSJ. (1999c) DIT2: Devising and testing a new instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology91(4): 644–659.
13.
RestJThomaSNarvaezD. (1997) Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Educational Psychology89(3): 498–507.
14.
ThomaSJ (2006) Research using the Defining Issues Test. In: KillenMSmetanaJS (eds) Handbook of Moral Psychology, pp. 67–92. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
ThomaSJ (2014) Measuring moral thinking from a neo-Kohlbergian perspective. Theory and Research in Education12(3): 347–365.
16.
ThomaSJBebeauMBowlandA (2008) The role of moral judgment in context-specific professional decision-making. In: OserFVeugelersW (eds) Moral Development, Character and Action. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 147–160.
17.
ThomaSJBarnettRRestJ. (1999a) What does the DIT measure?British Journal of Social Psychology38(1): 103–111.
18.
ThomaSJDerryberryPCrowsonHM (2013) Describing and testing an intermediate concept measure of adolescent moral thinking. European Journal of Developmental Psychology10: 239–252.
19.
ThomaSJNarvaezDRestJR. (1999b) Does moral judgment reduce to political attitude or verbal ability?Educational Psychology Review11(4): 324–342.
