Luppo Kuillman

Chapter 2 42 Construct validity of the MSQ-DELIB and MSQ-PATER scales Divergent validity As demonstrated by the results of CFA, the constructs of MSQ- PATER and MSQ-DELIB had no conceptual overlap (see Figure 1) and were not correlated ( r = .03). The hypothesis concerning the divergent validity of the MSQ-DELIB and MSQ-PATER scales (H1) was confirmed. The results further provide evidence of divergent validity for both scales, given theabsenceof any correlationbetweeneither scale or the DIT-N2 (H2). Convergent validity Our analyses revealed several statistically significant correlations, which could be used to establish convergent validity, as hypothesized. First, (H3.1), the MSQ-DELIB scale is positively correlated with a) the “Behavioral Control targeted at Preventing Harm (BCPH)” scale ( r = .34) and b) (H3.2) the “Ethics Advocacy Attitude Scale (EAS)” ( r = .42), and it is thus negatively correlated (H3.3) with c) “Moral Disengagement Total (MDS)” ( r = −.17). Second, there is a significant correlation between the MSQ-PATER scale and a) the BCPH scale ( r = .17) and b) MDS ( r = .20), with no inclination towards ethics advocacy (−.06, ns), as hypothesized (H4.1, H4.2, H4.3). Given that the correlation between paternalism (MSQ-PATER) and BCPH was weaker than the correlation between moral deliberation (MSQ-DELIB) and BCPH, it could be that care providers who tend to follow a model of negotiation in their interactions with patients are likely to attach greater importance to the prevention of harm ( r = .34) than are care providers who are more inclined towards “command management” ( r = .17). The Cronbach’s alpha values, which serve as indicators of internal consistency for all of the scales used, are included in the right-hand column of Table 2.