Proprietary psychological assessment measure
The VIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), formerly known as the Values in Action Inventory, is a proprietary psychological assessment measure designed to identify an individual's profile of "character strengths".
It was created by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, researchers in the field of positive psychology, in order to operationalize their handbook "Character Strengths and Virtues" ("CSV"). The "CSV" is the positive psychology counterpart to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" ("DSM") used in traditional psychology.
Unlike the "DSM", which scientifically categorizes human deficits and disorders, the "CSV" classifies positive human strengths. The "CSV" helps people recognize and build upon their strengths. This aligns with the overall goal of the positive psychology movement, to make people's lives more fulfilling. People can use the VIA-IS to identify their own positive strengths and learn how to capitalize on them.
Classification of strengths.
VIA-IS recognizes 24 character strengths organized under six core virtues:
Composition and administration.
The VIA-IS is a 96-question measure of 24 character strengths. On average, an individual will complete the VIA-IS in 10 to 15 minutes. (Previous versions of 240 and 120 questions were criticized for their length. ;/ref ;
Using a second order factor analysis, Macdonald and colleagues found that the 24 strengths did not fit into the six higher order virtues model proposed in the "CSV". None of the clusters of characters strengths that they found resembled the structure of the six virtue clusters of strengths. The researchers noted that many of the VIA character strengths cross-loaded onto multiple factors. Rather, the strengths were best represented by a one and four factor model. A one factor model would mean that the strengths are best accounted for by, “one overarching factor,” such as a global trait of character.797 A four factor model more closely resembles the "Big Five" model of personality. The character strengths in the four factor model could be organized into the following four groups: Niceness, Positivity, Intellect, and Conscientiousness.792
Peterson and Seligman conducted a factor analysis and found that a five factor model, rather than their six hierarchical virtues model, best organized the strengths. Their study, however, did not include five of the character strengths in the results of their analysis. The researchers most likely did this because their results were plagued by the problem of strengths cross-loading on to multiple factors, similar to what occurred in Macdonald and colleagues' study. Clearly, empirical evidence casts doubt on the link proposed by Peterson and Seligman between the 24 strengths and associated 6 higher order virtues.
Brdar and Kashdan used more precise statistical tools to build upon the findings of the two earlier studies. They found that a four factor model (Interpersonal Strengths, Vitality, Fortitude, and Cautiousness) explained 60% of the variance. One large, overarching factor explained 50% of the variance. The four factors found by Brdar and Kashdan are similar to the four factors found by Macdonald and colleagues. Once again, Brdar and Kashdan found that the 24 strengths did not fall into the six higher order virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman. The correlations found between many of the strengths demonstrates that each strength is not distinct, which contradicts the claims made by the creators of the VIA-IS.
Robert E. McGrath modified the inventory by adding four new scales (Positivity, Future-Mindedness, Receptivity, Intellectual Pursuits) and removing four previous scales of Leadership, Zest, Hope, and Gratitude. He suggested five virtues (second-order factors) instead of six hypothesized virtues by Peterson and Seligman. These virtues were: Interpersonal, Emotional, Intellectual, Restraint, and Future Orientation.
These factors / virtues resembled the ones identified in previous factor-analytic studies which have found very different factor structures than the ones hypothesized theoretically. Therefore, substantial evidence stands against original scale structures, in terms of nature of factors and their structures regarding content of items. McGrath also found that a lot of items that were part of original character strengths inventory (VIA-IS) were no more belonging to the same scales after confirmatory factor analyses. His new scales had some overlaps with previous scales, but had many new items from other scales that loaded onto them instead of previous ones. McGrath indicated that the original scale structure needs several modifications and future studies would yield a better structure for a second-generation model of strengths.
Caution should be taken in interpreting the results from these four studies as their samples differ in age and country of origin.
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;