Below are the opinions of several personality psychologists regarding the RVS.
All in all, it seems reasonable to conclude that the updated version of the Study of
Values possesses essentially equivalent substantive and psychometric properties in
comparison to the original version. Most important from our perspective is that researchers
and practitioners be informed about the existence of an updated version of
the SOV.
As suggested in our introduction, there are serious problems with the two
most prominent measures of values. For example, Peng et al. (1997) compared three
methods of value assessment: Rokeach rankings, Schwartz ratings, and a behavioral
scenario method that they (Peng, et al.) originated. The rankings correlated only
modestly with themselves (across samples) and showed little or no correlations with
ratings. Further, they found neither the ratings nor rankings related to an external
criterion. In contrast, behavioral scenarios showed high external validity. Hence,
they called for the use of behavioral scenarios to assess values.
Connor and Becker (1994) noted in their review of research on personal values: ''So
we agree with Rokeach?s (1985) wonderful observation, Life is ipsative? . . .Still, ranking
18 values is not exactly choice behavior of an either-or variety. It is obvious to us
that there is a strong need for instruments that place respondents in realistic behavioral-
choice situations, situations in which the choice is clearly values driven'' (p. 71).
Similarly, Gibbins and Walker?s (1994), first sentence of their abstract reads: ''It is
suggested that the popularity of the Rokeach Value Survey is undeserved and that the
apparent independence of each value being measured is a consequence of the fact that
the survey measures each value quite badly'' (p. 797). And, as alluded to previously,
Peng et al. (1997) reported that criterion-related validity coefficients for both Schwartz
value ratings (.45) and Rokeach value rankings (.39) were both lower than a chance level
of agreement (.50). In light of these concerns, we believe that an updated version of
the SOV should be re-considered by researchers, counselors, and educators when attempting
to assess personal values. Clearly the original SOV (as most recently revised
in 1951) cannot conceivably have a ''shelf-life'' of 50 years. But with our minor ''tweakings,''
a realistic, scenario-based behavioral choice instrument is available again.
There is also a theoretical argument to be made in favor of the SOV approach toward
assessing values. Because values are believed to be less than totally conscious,
somewhat below the level of complete awareness (cf. Meglino & Ravlin, 1998), accurate
value assessments may not be accessible directly. Rather, the valid discernment of
personal values may require the indirect assessments such as made in choice situations
(e.g., Locke, 1991; Williams, 1968, 1979). Indeed, Allport (1960) noted that after an
individual completes the SOV, a pattern resulting from conscious choices emerges to
form a profile of values; yet the individual is often not consciously aware of this pattern
beforehand. Somewhat analogously, McClelland (1985) lamented that the
Achievement motive was increasingly being measured by directly assessed ''need''
to achieve scales, measures that were consciously mediated. In his view, motive
strength was not accurately accessible via direct questioning. Future research might,
for the first time, simultaneously compare the psychometric adequacy and predictive
validity of: Rokeach rankings, Schwartz ratings, and the updated version of the SOV.
If the timeless counsel of ''knowthyself' ' is to be heeded, itwould be interesting to see
howthe three approaches compare. Finally, it is notable that the first author no longer
gets complaints that ''this test is sexist'' when the SOV-U is used to demonstrate
howan individual?s values shape his or her interpretation of a case study.
p. 210 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220
I suggest that you look into the updated Study of Values which was published in JVB.
I will provide a scoring sheet upon request.
Best,
Richard Kopelman
Richard E. Kopelman
Professor of Management and
Academic Co-Director, Executive MSILR Program
Management Department
VC 9-237
Zicklin School of Business
Baruch College
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010-5585
tel: 646.312.3629, fax: 646.312.3621