Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development
Jane Loevinger Washington University

Evidence for the construct validity of the SenCompletion Test of Ego Development (SCT), some of it previously unpublished, is reviewed. The substantive component is substantiated both by intuitive plausibility and by the fact that rating skill can be communicated through written instructions. Internal consistency is shown by alpha coefficients of about .85. Evidence for sequentiality is provided by studies showing cross-sectional gains with age during adolescence, similar profiles of item scores for adjacent total protocol ratings, substantial correlations over long time spans, gains proportional to retest intervals during adolescence, gains following theory-relevant interventions of several months’ length, and better comprehension of lower than of higher stages. The SCT has substantial correlation with tests of related conceptions, such as Kohlberg’s test of moral maturity, and with measures of ego level applied to other behavior samples. Correlations with isolated traits characteristic of specific stages range from negligible to positive. Studies of external validity in general yield positive results, though theory does not sharply define what results should be considered positive. At lower ego levels there is behavioral evidence confirming the syndromes; at higher levels differential evidence lies in attitudes and ideas. Overall, the test has adequate validity for research purposes when administered and scored with sufficient care, but not for individual diagnosis unsupported by other data. Evidence for construct validity is substantial, but falls short of clear proof of sequentiality. tence This paper reviews studies bearing on the convalidity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development (SCT), emphasizing the logic of construct validation and previously unpublished data. Studies covered in Hauser’s (1976) review of the ego development concept and test will be referred to only briefly. The original discussions of construct validity (e.g., Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Loevinger, 1957) ignored tests of developmental variables; therefore, the present review covers new ground struct methodologically.
The Construct of Ego Development
The term ego development is ambiguous, covering both the specific set of stages measured

with the SCT and the broader domain of the

developmental typologies, such as those of Kohlberg, Perry, Selman, and Blasi (Loevinger, on relations among the constructs within the domain, but only minimal research. Since the stages have been fully delineated elsewhere (Hauser, 1976; Loevinger, 1966, 1976; Loevinger & Wessler, 1970), they can be described briefly. The earliest stage that can be judged from the test is the Impulsive Stage, normal in early childhood and not infrequent as high as the sixth grade. At this stage the child is egocentric, dependent, and demanding, and lives in a con-

1976). There has been speculation

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Vol. 3, No. 3 Summer 1979 pp. 281-.311 1 @ Copyright 1979 West Publishing Co.

Downloaded from the Digital Conservancy at the University of Minnesota, http://purl.umn.edu/93227. May be reproduced with no cost by students and faculty for academic use. Non-academic reproduction requires payment of royalties through the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com/

281

282

ceptually oversimplified world. When problems are perceived, they are external and often located in a place; thus, the child can run away from them. Work is onerous, not an opportunity. Rules are either not perceived or are seen as the arbitrary exercise of authority. The next stage is Self-Protective. Originally it was called Opportunistic, but that term was discarded as too pejorative, particularly for children passing through the phase in normal time-grade school or junior high years. The child in this stage tends to be less impulsive, more wary, and more self-sufficient than before, but rules are obeyed for his or her own shortterm advantage. Other people are blamed when trouble occurs. Staying out of trouble and not

people’s autonomy is respected. There is a higher stage, called Integrated, reMaslow’s self-actualizing person. sembling Table 1 summarizes the stages of ego development measured by the SCT. theoretical getting caught are major preoccupations.
The next, or Conformist, stage is characterized by conformity to rules for their own sake. The person identifies himself or herself with the group. Inner life is perceived, but only in banal and conventional terms. Moralistic cliches are favored expressions. The modal level for high school graduates is probably the transition from the Conformist to the Conscientious Stage. Rather than assuming, as the Conformist does, that &dquo;one size fits all,&dquo; the person here perceives personal problems and alternative possibilities in situations. Self is seen as somewhat apart from and differentiated from the group. Work is an opportunity. At the Conscientious Stage, the person has a richly differentiated inner life and a sense of the many differences in traits among people. The person adheres to a set of beliefs that have been self-evaluated, rather than ones adopted by the group, aspires to achievement as measured by his or her own standards rather than worldly success, and feels responsible for others. The person at the next stage, called Autonomous, has many of the characteristics of the previous stage. The aspiration for achievement is partially supplanted by a desire for mutuality and self-fulfillment. Inner conflict is accepted and coped with. Individual differences are not only perceived but cherished. Other

Numbering the stages is inappropriate, as there are one or two prior stages, which are omitted because they have no representation in the SCT. Moreover, the construct is open to revision and expansion, in which case stage numbers would cause confusion. (For example, Kohlberg, 1973, is now saddled with the awkward concept of a &dquo;Stage 4 1/2.&dquo;) Many authors have numbered these stages, but they have done so in inconsistent ways. The alternative, naming the stages, also can lead to misunderstanding, as no human capacity springs into being full blown at one stage and disappears on passage to the next. For example, a response indicating or advocating conformity may or may not be classified at the Conformist Stage. Each stage is assumed to be characterized by a more or less coherent structure of thought, feelings, and perceptions. The Conformist Stage might be defined as the stage at which conformity, nonconformity, and anticonformity are

central, though often unacknowledged, problems of existence. Such a definition lifts the

con-

ception out of the realm of simple conventionality and into what might be called metacon formity (Loevinger, 1976). There is no easy way to reduce such a complex conception to objective indicators.
The Test and its Manual

scoring manual for the SCT (Loevinger & Wessler, 1970; Loevinger, Wessler, & Redmore, 1970) includes item manuals for 36 specific
The

forms for women and with instructions for arriving at a girls, together total protocol score after rating all 36 item responses. A set of graduated exercises, appropriate for graduate or advanced undergraduate students, permits persons to train themselves in the technique. sentence stems from the

Downloaded from the Digital Conservancy at the University of Minnesota, http://purl.umn.edu/93227. May be reproduced with no cost by students and faculty for academic use. Non-academic reproduction requires payment of royalties through the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com/

e 0 CO r--i m

C m »
4-3

N »
-~

m »

co r M 0
U

cr

1 p u
M

m h m 0

.11.1
4J

E

~:
’i:1

m lj
-~
’4-t

0) t-< :i m 0