Factor Structure of the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire

Abstract

Objectives: The present study examined the factorial invariance and functional equivalence of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) among the Chinese. Methods: A total of 839 undergraduate students completed the 240-item Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS online. Another 40 students participated in qualitative interviews to examine the meaning and function of the items in Chinese culture. Results: A total of 144 items were removed from the original version questionnaire (240-item) because of low item-loading and lack of cultural validity. A Chinese Virtues Questionnaire-96 (CVQ-96) in simplified Chinese containing 96 items (4 items per strength) was adopted. Three subscales (interpersonal, vitality, and cautiousness) were developed after exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Conclusion: A theoretically meaningful 3-factor model of virtue, comparable to some virtue structures proposed in previous studies conducted in Western countries, was obtained. The inventories being developed can facilitate positive social work assessment and intervention.

Keywords

psychometric test virtues positive psychology Chinese culture

Introduction

Character strengths are a family of positive traits manifested in an individual's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It was proposed that six core virtues could be found in various writings of philosophers and thinkers in major cultures around the world such as Confucianism and Taoism in China, Buddhism, and Hinduism in South Asia, Athenian philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in West, which were important for a good life or for cultivating happiness (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). It was further proposed that 24 character strengths could be grouped under these 6 virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The corresponding strengths of each of the six virtues are wisdom and knowledge (creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective); courage (authenticity, bravery, perseverance, zest); humanity (kindness, love, social intelligence); justice (fairness, leadership, teamwork); temperance (forgiveness, modesty, prudence, self-regulation); transcendence (appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, religiousness). A 240-item self-reporting English language questionnaire (called the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths, VIA-IS) was developed to measure the 24 strengths (with 10 items per strength) and their corresponding virtues. Different translated versions of the VIA-IS including Chinese, Spanish, Japanese were later developed, and more than 1 million individuals from different countries and regions have completed the questionnaire online (Biswas-Diener, 2006; Linley et al., 2007; Park & Peterson, 2010; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004; Peterson, Ruch, Beermann, Park, & Seligman, 2007).

Subsequent studies have shown consistently that character strengths are positively related to positive psychological outcomes, such as happiness (Peterson, 2006), general health (Otake et al., 2005), well-being (Park et al., 2004), and life satisfaction (Peterson et al., 2007). Zest, hope, curiosity, and gratitude were the most powerful predictors for happiness (Shimai, Otake, Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006). Some longitudinal studies had shown they could predict future subjective well-being (Gillham et al., 2011), and identifying and using one’s character strengths was an effective strategy to achieve happiness (Mitchell, Stanimirovic, Klein, & Vella-Brodrick, 2009; Park et al., 2004; Peterson, 2006; Peterson et al., 2007; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, 2011).

However, previous related studies conducted in different samples failed to confirm the virtue structure proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). In fact, inconsistent results including 5-virtue models (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Ruch et al., 2010; Singh & Choubisa, 2010), 4-virtue models (Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Macdonald, Bore, & Munro, 2008), and 3-virtue models (Khumalo, Wissing, & Temane, 2008; Shryack, Steger, Krueger, & Kallie, 2010) were being proposed in different cultures, such as Germany, America, India, Croatia, Australia, and Africa. For instance, in a recent study, Shryack et al. (2010) conducted principal component analysis with varimax rotation of the 24 strengths among 332 participants in the United States and reported a three-dimensional model consisting of agency/self-assuredness, sociability, and conscientiousness. If different virtue structures were obtained among different samples in western countries, it is important to examine the factorial invariance of the virtue structure in Asian countries. More importantly, it was suggested that the same behavior (strength) might represent a different function in different cultures (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011; Leong, Leung, & Cheung, 2010). This issue is referred to as functional equivalence and conceptual equivalence, and it suggests that some items of the VIA-IS may not be appropriate to people with a vastly different culture background. As we know, eastern culture puts more focus on collectivism while western culture on individualism (Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), and because of this, some items of the VIA-IS may serve different functions in western versus eastern countries. For instance, the item “I never tell outsiders things bad about my team” is a common social expectation in a collective culture of Mainland China that would be applied to most people and may lack the sensitivity to measure the strength related to citizenship. Similarly, the item “I practice my religion” may not be appropriate to represent spirituality in Mainland as most of the people in the country are atheists. In addition, some items representing the strength in Western culture may represent socially unacceptable behavior in China, “When I hear people say something mean, I make a protest” may not merge well into the Chinese social context where a harmonious relationship is always emphasized. Similarly, Item 15 of the VIA-IS (“I have no trouble eating healthy foods”) may not be suitable for those who do not have a clear concept of “healthy food,” most people thought their ordinary diet was healthy enough as the diverse food culture in China, hence, this item will lose its validity in such a context when assessing the “self-regulation” strength. Besides, previous researches used different samples (i.e., college students, undergraduates, ordinary adults, or monozygotic twins) and different factor analysis strategies to examine the factor structures of the VIA-IS, making the results not directly comparable. These two factors must be taken into consideration in the application of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to the scale revision and refinement (Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000).

Based on the above, we believed that research of investigating the factorial and functional invariance of the VIA-IS items in China is important to ensure proper assessment of virtues among the Chinese. Furthermore, Chinese culture has a solid tradition with different domains and conceptual frameworks (e.g., Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Mohism). For instance, Lao-Tse, a Chinese philosopher who established Taoism said in his Tao Te Ching that “Following a main road is easy, yet people delight in difficult paths,” and “Take care at the end as at the beginning, so that you may avoid failure” (Lao-Tse, 2006). The above statements may represent the strength courage among the Chinese. When it comes to Transcendence, he said “Use your own light, and return to the source of light. This is called practicing eternity” (Lao-Tse, 2006). Confucius (1938) said, “Going too far and not going far enough are equally bad.” This reminds us that one should regulate what he or she feels and does (Self-regulation). He also proposed that “When walking in the company of other men, there must be one I can learn something from. I shall pick out his merits to follow and his shortcomings for reference to overcome my own” (Confucius, 1938). This suggests one should take a comprehensive view of a person (open-mindedness) and be good at learning from others (love of learning). A detailed description of the writings of these philosophers is beyond the scope of this article. The above discussion should be sufficient to show that virtues might have different functions and behavioral appearances in Chinese society, and that testing the factorial invariance of the Chinese version of the VIA-IS is imperative to ensure an accurate measurement of virtues and strengths among the Chinese.

To sum up, the present study was conducted to (1) examine whether the 24 strengths could be grouped into the same 6 virtues proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004) in China and (2) to examine the appropriateness and functional equivalence of the VIA-IS items in measuring the corresponding character strengths among the Chinese. Both quantitative method and cognitive interviewing method were used in accordance to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on translation and adaptation of instruments (WHO, 2011). To our best understanding, this is the first study to examine the structure of virtue among the Chinese. Our results can provide insight on the cultural invariance of virtue structure.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Approval was obtained from the original author of the VIA-IS (Peterson, C.) to conduct the present project to validate the Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS in Mainland China. Ethics approval was obtained from the School of Culture and Social Development in Southwest University of China. There were two phases in this study which were conducted simultaneously.

Phase 1

The total sample of this study consisted of 839 undergraduate students from Southwest University recruited through public notice channels (e.g., bulletin board) or class announcements. Mean age of this sample was 20.62 years (SD = 2.12; range 17–25). 365 (43.50%) were males and 471 (56.10%) were females; 3 participants did not provide information about their gender. After informed consent, participants were asked by e-mail to visit the website of VIA Institute on Character ( www.viacharacter.org ) to complete the Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS between June and December 2010. After completion of the questionnaire, each participant would receive a debriefing report containing their top five strengths with additional explanation. A research code was provided to identify these participants. All data were downloaded by the VIA Institute on Character and sent to the first author of this study via e-mail after the data collection period.

Phase 2

Cognitive group interviews were conducted among another 40 university students (20 females and 20 males) who had not participated in Phase 1 of this study. Mean age of this sample was 20.57 years (SD = .95; range 19–23). They were recruited from a general psychology education class which all students of the university could enroll. An in-class briefing session was conducted by the first author of this study to encourage students to participate. Students participated on a voluntary basis without remuneration of any form. The purpose of the cognitive interviews was to obtain feedback from the participants regarding the appropriateness and meanings of the VIA-IS items. In order to be consistent with the type of participants of phase 1, undergraduate students were recruited again for phase 2. The results obtained, however, were discussed and triangulated among an expert panel to decide the selection of items (see Data Analysis section). Participants were randomly divided into four groups with 10 participants per group. All interviews were conducted by the first author according to a script with questions on comprehension and appropriateness in Chinese culture context.

Materials

The Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS (VIA-IS-SC) has 240 items and was translated from the original English version by the Positive Psychology Laboratory of the University of Hong Kong through the forward translation and backward translation procedures. Respondents were asked to rate to what extent each item could describe them on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = very much unlike me to 5 = very much like me (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). As mentioned before, scores of 24 strengths (10 items per strengths) and 6 virtues can be obtained from the original English language version of the VIA-IS by summing the corresponding items of each scales.

Cognitive interviewing consisted of the following 4 types of questions: (1) Please tell me whether you understand this item or not? What do you think the item is asking? (2) What would you think about when you first read this item? (3) Do you understand the description of response choices in the questionnaire? What is the meaning of “Very Much like Me”? (And so on for other responses) Which one do you choose? Why? (4) Could you select a response choice reflecting your true opinion to this item? Why?

Questions (1) and (2) assessed the functional and conceptual equivalence (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011) of the items by examining participants’ understanding and interpretations of the items. Questions (3) and (4) assessed whether participants could understand the instructions and anchoring descriptions of the scale.

Data Analysis

We chose items for the VIA-IS for final analysis according to the following strategies. First, item level EFA was conducted for each of the 24 strengths separately (with 10 items per strength). An item loading cutoff point of .60 was adopted to decide whether an item was inappropriate to be loaded onto a particular strength (Hair et al., 1998). Bartlett’s tests of sphericity of the 24 subscales were all significant, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMOs) were above .75 (range .75–.91). Second, verbal outputs from the cognitive interviews were transcribed into written form, and a triangulation procedure was conducted among all researchers of this project to decide selection of items for subsequent analysis. One of the research team members is from Hong Kong, and he has developed the Traditional Chinese version of the questionnaire. The other authors are researchers in Mainland China who are familiar with both Simplified Chinese and situations in China. All members are conversant in English. Apart from item loadings, we also took cultural appropriateness of each item into consideration as mentioned in the introduction section in item selection. Items which are not culturally appropriate—going against social norm, social expectation, social context, and loss of test sensitivity which were caused by cultural differences—would be excluded so that the final number of items would be less than 240. Developing a shorter version of VIA-IS is justifiable by the fact that the original 240-item VIA-IS may require 40 min or more to complete and a shorter version can increase its brevity and efficiency (Kastner, Sellbom, & Lilienfeld, 2011). Similar to the 240-item VIA-IS and other translated version of the VIA-IS, we adopted the a priori decision that there should be equal number of items per strength. We hope this would facilitate the comparison of data among different studies across countries in future, and when taking into account the practical application, a nearly equal number of items in each subscale would be conducive to controlling acquiescence response set (Moos, 1997). Some items were excluded according to the results of EFA and qualitative cognitive interviews (Phase 2) above. Next, we randomly divided the sample in Phase 1 (n = 839) into two subsamples. EFA was conducted for the first sub-sample while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the second. The average age of subsample 1 (S1, n = 420) was 20.31 (SD = 1.85; range 17–25). In all 164 (39.05%) were males and 253 (60.24%) were females; 3 participants did not provide information about their gender. Subsample 2 (S2) consisted of 419 participants. Their average age was 20.13 (SD = 1.74; range 17–25). A total of 201 (47.97%) were males and 218 (52.03%) were females. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 20.0 and Amos 20.0.

Results

Selection of Items

Item level EFA of each strength

Table 1 depicts the item level EFA results of each strength. Two significant findings were obtained: (a) the mean loading of items was .56 (SD = .12, range .17–.78), and more than half of the item loadings were lower than .60 and (b) the 10 corresponding items of most character strengths explained no more than 35.00% (mean = 27.31%) of variance with the exception of creativity (explained variance = 43.67%). These results revealed that a number of inappropriate items must be rejected to improve item loading and explained variance

Table 1

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 24 Strengths in the Original Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (N = 839)

Creativity		Curiosity		Open-mindedness		Love of learning		Perspective		Authenticity
Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load
T5	.781	T7	.714	T8	.686	T9	.691	T5	.679	T5	.699
T7	.763	T9	.713	T7	.682	T7	.684	T10	.670	T1	.677
T6	.760	T5	.664	T2	.663	T5	.669	T8	.627	T2	.631
T3	.703	T3	.634	T10	.625	T4	.628	T1	.622	T10	.610
T1	.697	T1	.626	T6	.620	T2	.584	T2	.605	T3	.569
T2	.661	T4	.618	T4	.608	T3	.570	T9	.599	T8	.494
T8	.641	T8	.615	T5	.554	T10	.562	T3	.567	T7	.418
T9	.569	T6	.487	T3	.515	T8	.533	T4	.451	T6	.374
T4	.495	T2	.437	T1	.135	T1	.530	T7	.563	T4	.317
T10	.452	T10	.247	T9	.274	T6	.506	T6	.566	T9	.390
43.669%^a		34.403%		31.095%		26.220%		31.175%		24.010%
Fairness		Leadership		Teamwork		Forgiveness		Modesty		Prudence
Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load
T4	.690	T8	.689	T9	.706	T7	.671	T4	.705	T6	.654
T9	.680	T5	.683	T6	.681	T3	.667	T7	.657	T3	.631
T3	.651	T3	.637	T4	.624	T6	.652	T9	.648	T7	.563
T5	.644	T1	.614	T10	.606	T1	.633	T10	.584	T2	.562
T10	.627	T9	.598	T2	.598	T4	.591	T1	.561	T9	.545
T6	.625	T2	.575	T8	.586	T8	.573	T8	.548	T5	.478
T8	.583	T6	.554	T7	.575	T2	.569	T5	.394	T8	.450
T7	.477	T10	.533	T1	.549	T5	.540	T2	.496	T4	.441
T1	.429	T7	.498	T3	.512	T1	.431	T3	.435	T1	.317
T2	.273	T4	.532	T5	.490	T9	.398	T6	.284	T10	.259
33.864%		25.817%		24.931%		24.117%		23.344%		20.371%
Bravery		Perseverance		Zest		Kindness		Love		Social intelligence
Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load
T6	.687	T8	.716	T6	.687	T3	.667	T6	.680	T2	.694
T10	.609	T9	.670	T4	.674	T6	.642	T2	.658	T9	.653
T5	.576	T4	.661	T9	.673	T2	.631	T9	.625	T4	.646
T3	.574	T5	.636	T10	.608	T8	.623	T8	.595	T1	.621
T7	.551	T1	.611	T5	.581	T4	.612	T3	.564	T5	.615
T1	.535	T3	.603	T7	.521	T10	.597	T7	.556	T6	.563
T2	.512	T7	.540	T3	.426	T9	.556	T4	.551	T3	.523
T4	.495	T6	.535	T1	.336	T7	.483	T10	.551	T7	.506
T9	.442	T2	.453	T8	.211	T5	.482	T5	.231	T10	.477
T8	.325	T10	.360	T2	.372	T1	.437	T1	.438	T8	.402
20.774%		34.531%		25.997%		33.414%		25.005%		33.248%
Self-regulation		Appreciation of beauty and excellence		Gratitude		Hope		Humor		Religiousness
Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load	Item	Load
T3	.612	T6	.692	T5	.707	T3	.729	T6	.754	T9	.730
T8	.538	T7	.606	T8	.664	T7	.644	T9	.724	T6	.723
T10	.534	T9	.602	T9	.662	T2	.582	T4	.718	T3	.686
T4	.534	T3	.589	T7	.642	T8	.580	T10	.682	T4	.626
T2	.527	T10	.564	T10	.630	T6	.572	T2	.641	T10	.589
T9	.522	T8	.529	T6	.627	T4	.527	T3	.495	T1	.480
T5	.481	T4	.456	T1	.573	T9	.513	T5	.491	T5	.459
T1	.373	T1	.413	T4	.537	T10	.472	T8	.359	T8	.394
T6	.314	T2	.398	T2	.507	T5	.328	T1	.512	T7	.432
T7	.346	T5	.500	T3	.447	T1	.570	T7	.487	T2	.388
18.638%		19.867%		25.494%		22.776%		26.539%		26.049%

Note. The percentages at the bottom of the tables represent the total variance explained.

Cognitive interviewing

After triangulation, a number of items were deleted because they had low loadings and were not conformed to Chinese social norms. For example, “I always speak up in protest when I hear someone say mean things” (brave, T9 = .44; Table 1) and “I have no trouble eating healthy foods” (self-regulation, T1 = .37; Table 1) had low item loadings and did not synchronized well with the Chinese culture (see Introduction). These items were removed from the item pool. Furthermore, some religion-related items (e.g., “I believe in a universal power, a god”) might illicit different interpretations for people in Mainland, or some items related to gratitude (e.g., “At least once a day, I stop and count my blessings”) which carry a strong religious connotation were excluded. A total of 103 items out of 240 items were removed and 137 items were retained as a result.

Next, 27 of the original 240 items were removed after the semistructured group interviews based on feedback from the participants (remaining items = 110). For example, “I stick with whatever I decide to do” of the original VIA-IS was intended to measure perseverance. However, 17 participants (42.50%) did not consider it as a representation of perseverance in Chinese culture. To avoid potential ambiguity, we excluded this item from the questionnaire. It should be noted that we had retained some items with low item loading for further exploration based on the results of the interviews. For instance, “I can always say enough is enough” was endorsed by almost 92.50% of the participants as a representation of bravery in Chinese culture despite its low loading (brave, T8 = .33; Table 1).

Finally, we had excluded some items to standardize the number of items per strength. Fourteen out of the retaining 110 items with the lowest item loadings were removed. The final Short version of the Simplified Chinese contained 96 items (4 items per strength) to measure the 24 character strengths was adopted for further analyses. This newly developed questionnaire was named the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire-96 (CVQ-96) to distinguish it from the original VIA-IS.

Factor Structure of the CVQ-96

EFA

To examine the factor structure of CVQ-96, a strength-level EFA among the 96 items was performed among S1 (n = 420). Principal components analyses with varimax rotations were used to extract components (Shryack et al., 2010). After several explorations, three factors with eigenvalues equaled to 10.612, 1.932, and 1.322, respectively, were extracted, and these factors together could explained 57.774% of the total variance (Table 2). Factor 1 contained all vitality strengths and some strengths of fortitude in the model of Brdar and Kashdan (2010). It also contained most strengths of self-assuredness in the model of Shryack et al. (2010). This factor is termed Vitality in the current study and explained 44.215% of the total variance. The second factor (Factor 2) contained most of the Interpersonal strengths of Brdar and Kashdan (2010), as well as the sociability strengths of Shryack et al. (2010), and authenticity which reflected strengths related to interacting with others. This factor was named interpersonal and it explained 8.050% of the total variance. The third factor (Factor 3) was called cautiousness and it contained the prudence, self-regulation, judgment, modesty, perseverance, and learning. This factor explained 5.509% of the total variance.

Table 2

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Chinese Virtue Questionnaire-96 (N = 420)

	Present Study			Peterson, etc. (2004)	Brdar, etc. (2010)	Singh, etc. (2010)	Shryack, etc. (2010)
	Factor 1	Facto2	Facto3	Peterson, etc. (2004)	Brdar, etc. (2010)	Singh, etc. (2010)	Shryack, etc. (2010)
Humor	.760	.256	.048	Transcendence	Vitality	Interpersonal	Sociability
Curiosity	.752	.266	.114	Wisdom and knowledge	Vitality	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
Creativity	.714	.139	.300	Wisdom and knowledge	Fortitude	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
Zest	.685	.377	.186	Courage	Vitality	Self-assurance	Self-assuredness
Perspective	.651	.090	.410	Wisdom and knowledge	Fortitude	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
Hope	.640	.283	.127	Transcendence	Vitality	Self-assurance	Self-assuredness
Social	.628	.184	.369	Humanity	Fortitude	Interpersonal	Self-assuredness
Beauty	.553	.244	.320	Transcendence	-	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
Bravery	.495	.295	.446	Temperance	Interpersonal	Civic	Self-assuredness
Belief	.449	.295	.399	Transcendence	Cautiousness	Self-assurance	-
Kindness	.235	.758	.098	Humanity	Interpersonal	Interpersonal	Sociability
Teamwork	.144	.752	.202	Justice	Interpersonal	Civic	Sociability
Love	.294	.739	.030	Humanity	Interpersonal	Intellectual	Sociability
Fairness	.228	.727	.285	Justice	Interpersonal	Civic	Sociability
Leadership	.244	.672	.264	Justice	Interpersonal	Civic	Sociability
Forgiveness	.287	.656	.190	Temperance	Interpersonal	Intellectual	Sociability
Authenticity	.114	.652	.451	Courage	Cautiousness	Civic	Conscientiousness
Gratitude	.319	.539	.395	Transcendence	Interpersonal	Intellectual	Sociability
Prudence	.174	.170	.724	Temperance	Cautiousness	Civic	Conscientiousness
Regulation	.371	.103	.660	Temperance	Cautiousness	Self-assurance	Conscientiousness
Judgment	.487	.223	.619	Wisdom and knowledge	Fortitude	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
Modesty	.049	.320	.599	Courage	Fortitude	Interpersonal	Conscientiousness
Perseverance	.202	.391	.575	Courage	Cautiousness	Self-assurance	Conscientiousness
Learning	.440	.116	.524	Wisdom and knowledge	Fortitude	Intellectual	Self-assuredness
% of Variance	44.215%	8.050%	5.509%

CFA

CFA was conducted among participants of S2 (n = 419) to examine the models of the aggregated strengths in sequence. A total of five hypothesized models were proposed for comparison, three of which were constructed by means of merging any two factors into a whole one, then combing with the rest factor into a new model. Apart from the 3-factor related model, another model was constructed by merging all the factors into one. The goodness-of-fit indices of the 3-factor models achieved adequate fit in our sample (χ² = 829.440, df = 249, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .852, incremental fit index [IFI] = .899, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .887, comparative fit index [CFI] = .898, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .075; Table 3). Standardize path coefficients are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Structure model of Chinese Virtues Questionnaire-96 (CVQ-96) with standardize path coefficients.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 419)

Models	χ²	df	GFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
One-factor	1,413.235	252	.709	.797	.777	.796	.105
Two-factor-1	1,254.663	251	.736	.824	.806	.824	.098
Two-factor-2	1,237.126	252	.796	.828	.810	.827	.097
Two-factor-3	1,244.380	252	.769	.826	.809	.826	.097
Three-factor	829.440	249	.852	.899	.887	.898	.075

Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Two-Factor-1 model: interpersonal and vitality were merged into one factor; Two-Factor-2 model: cautiousness and vitality were merged into one factor; Two-Factor-3 model: interpersonal and cautiousness were merged into one factor.

Correlations

The descriptive statistics of the three subscales of the CVQ-96 (i.e., interpersonal, vitality, and cautiousness) and the correlations among the three subscales were provided in Table 4. The correlations between factors were ranged from .64 to .73, and the Cronbach’s α ranged from .83 to .90 (Table 4).

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 419)

	Mean (SD)	Interpersonal	Vitality	Cautiousness	Cronbach’s α
Interpersonal	3.974 (.422)	–			.900
Vitality	3.554 (.472)	.668^**	–		.905
Cautiousness	3.528 (.478)	.641^**	.734^**	–	.825

**p < .001.

Discussion

Peterson and Seligman (2004) stated that their classification would “change in the years to come, as theory and research concerning character strengths proceed” (p. 31). To date, most researches on character strengths relied on English-speaking samples. Park et al. (2006) studied character strengths in 54 nations with the English version of VIA-IS but only 110 of their 83,576 participants were Chinese who were educated enough to complete the English version of VIA-IS. The main purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure and functional equivalence of Simplified Chinese version of the VIA-IS among Chinese undergraduates in Mainland China. The 96 items (4-item per strength) of the CVQ measuring 24 strengths and 3 virtues were developed. Our results served as a supplement of existing findings reported in German (Ruch et al., 2010), America (Peterson &Seligmam, 2004), India (Singh & Choubisa, 2010), Japan (Otake et al., 2005), Croatia (Brdar & Kashdan, 2010), Australia (Macdonald et al., 2008), and Africa (Khumalo et al., 2008).

However, similar to other studies conducted outside of America (e.g. Brdar & Kashdan, 2010; Otake et al., 2005), our factor structure failed to confirm the 6-factor model framework proposed by Peterson and Seligman (2004). A theoretically meaningful 3-factor model was obtained, namely interpersonal, vitality, and cautiousness. Our result suggests that the 24 strengths of Peterson and Seligmam (2004) can be grouped under 3 virtues in our current sample. As mentioned before, Chinese culture has a solid tradition with different domains and conceptual frameworks, thus it will be very difficult and even impossible to have an integrated framework for understanding the Chinese conceptualization of “de”—which is usually translated as virtue in English. However, we argue that the three virtues (i.e., interpersonal, vitality, and cautiousness) measured by the CVQ-96 echo the teaching of three key philosophers (i.e., Mozi, Kongzi, and Mengzi) in early Chinese history. For instance, Mozi proposed a cognitive style called Anti-Fate to oppose fatalism which was one viewpoint of Confucianism, and he argued that all of us need the positive attitude toward life for creating a better and happier life rather than yielding to fate (Mill, 2007). Kongzi, in his The Analects, insisted on regarding “Ren” (kindness) as a core component of harmony and good relationship (Confucius, 1938). Self-cultivation was deemed to be extremely important for individual growth and development by Mengzi (Van Norden, 2007). Furthermore, our 3-factor model is also consistent with the findings of other previous studies (e.g. Khumalo et al., 2008; Shryack et al., 2010). It was observed from Table 2 that the similarities of different models was far greater than the differences, such as a factor reflecting positive behavior toward other people (interpersonal strength, niceness, or sociability), a factor reflecting positive qualities to world/society (vitality strength, perception, positivity, or assuredness), and a factor reflecting some intrapersonal traits (individual strength, cautiousness, or conscientiousness). Such virtue structure might be universal across cultures and should be explored further in future. It could be argued that the high correlations among the three virtues may suggest that the three factors should not be treated as independent constructs (Fowers, 2008). Nevertheless, our CFA results show that the 1-factor model as well as different versions of 2-factor models (Table 3) could not fit the data well. From a theoretical point of view, each of the three virtues should play a unique function in the well-being and cannot compensate for each other. We suggest that the three virtues should be treated as related but independent variables in future research and practice.

Some limitations should be mentioned. First, our samples were university students recruited from one single university in the southwest of China. Our results may not be generalizable to other populations in China. Second, it may be argued that our data collected via the Internet may not be valid and reliable. However, some studies show that data being collected via the Internet are comparable to those collected by face-to-face administration of questionnaires (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). Besides, collecting data via Internet is very common in studies on VIA-IS (Park & Peterson, 2010; Seligman et al., 2005). Hence, we have reasons to trust in the validity of our current data. Last, the current study has examined very limited aspects of the psychometric properties, other properties such as criterion-related validity, predictive validity, and content validity should be investigated in future studies.

Application to Social Work Practice

Regarding application to social work practice, the development of a questionnaire to measure virtue can facilitate social workers to identify strengths and potentials of their clients, so that appropriate positive psychology intervention can be implemented. It is compatible with the “advantages perspective” trend of modern social work practice. In addition, the CVQ-96 might facilitate future research on virtues among the Chinese-speaking communities. Abundant data collected in China might contribute to adding the database of samples and making comparison with those of other countries more easily. Finally, we hope the CVQ-96 could help to measure intervention efficacy to enhance evidence-based positive social work practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Prof. Chris Peterson and Ms. Linda Parker of the VIA Institute on Character for allowing to use the VIA-IS and to provide support to this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Biswas-Diener

(2006). From the equator to the north pole: A study of character strengths. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 293–310. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3646-8

Brdar

Kashdan

T. B.

(2010). Character strengths and well-being in Croatia: An empirical investigation of structure and correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 151–154. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.001

Cheung

F. M.

van de Vijver

F. J.

Leong

F. T.

(2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. Am Psychol, 66, 593–603. doi:10.1037/a0022389

Confucius. (1938). The analects of Confucius (A. Waley, Trans.). London, England: George Allen & Unwin.

Dahlsgaard

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9, 203–213. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.203. 203

Fowers

B. J.

(2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity and character types for positive psychology. Theory Psychology, 18, 629–653. doi:10.1177/0959354308093399

Gillham

Adams-Deutsch

Werner

Reivich

Coulter-Heindl

Linkins

Seligman

(2011). Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 31–44. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.536773

Gosling

S. D.

Vazire

Srivastava

John

O. P.

(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

Hair

J.F.

Anderson

R.E.

Tatham

R.L.

Black

W.C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

10.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-releted values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Kastner

R. M.

Sellbom

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2011). A comparison of the psychometric properties of the psychopathic personality inventory full-length and short-form versions. Psychological Assessment, 24, 261–267. doi:10.1037/a0025832

12.

Khumalo

I. P.

Wissing

M. P.

Temane

Q. M.

(2008). Exploring the validity of the values-in-action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in an African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18, 133–142.

13.

Lao-Tse. (2006). Tao Te Ching: A new English version ( Mitchell

, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

14.

Leong

F. T.

Leung

Cheung

F. M.

(2010). Integrating cross-cultural psychology research methods into ethnic minority psychology. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol, 16, 590–597. doi:10.1037/a0020127

15.

Linley

A. P.

Maltby

Wood

A. M.

Joseph

Harrington

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2007). Character strengths in the United Kingdom: The VIA inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 341–351. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.004

16.

Macdonald

Bore

Munro

(2008). Values in action scale and the big 5: An empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 787–799. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.003

17.

Mill

J. S.

(2007). Mozi and early mohism. In Norden

B. W. V.

(Ed.), Virtue ethics and consequentialism in early Chinese philosophy (pp. 139). New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Mitchell

Stanimirovic

Klein

Vella-Brodrick

(2009). A randomised controlled trial of a self-guided internet intervention promoting well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 749–760. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.003

19.

Moos

R. H.

(1997). Evaluating treatment environments: The quality of psychiatric and substance abuse programs (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

20.

Otake

Shimai

Ikemi

Utsuki

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2005). Development of the Japanese version of the value in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS). The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76, 461–467.

21.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

22.

Park

Peterson

(2010). Does it matter where we live?: The urban psychology of character strengths. American Psychologist, 65, 535–547. doi:10.1037/a0019621

23.

Park

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Strengths of character and well-being: A closer look at hope and modesty. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 628–634. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.5.628.50749

24.

Park

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2006). Character strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129. doi:10.1080/17439760600619567

25.

Peterson

(2006). Strengths of character and happiness: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 289–291. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3645-9

26.

Peterson

Ruch

Beermann

Park

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 149–156. doi:10.1080/17439760701228938

27.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Reise

S. P.

Waller

N. G.

Comrey

A. L.

(2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.12.3.287

29.

Ruch

Proyer

R. T.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Peterson

Park

Harzer

(2010). Values in action inventory of strengths (VIA-IS): Adaptation and validation of the German version and the development of a peer-rating form. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 138–149. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000022

30.

Seligman

M. E.

Steen

T. A.

Park

Peterson

(2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Am Psychol, 60, 410–421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

31.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

32.

Shimai

Otake

Park

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2006). Convergence of character strengths in American and Japanese young adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 311–322. doi:10.1007/s10902-005-3647-7

33.

Shryack

Steger

M. F.

Krueger

R. F.

Kallie

C. S.

(2010). The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 714–719. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.007

34.

Singh

Choubisa

(2010). Empirical validation of values in action-inventory of strengths (VIA-IS) in Indian context. Psychological Studies, 55, 151–158. doi:10.1007/s12646-010-0015-4

35.

Van Norden

B. W.

(2007). Virtue ethics and consequentialism in early Chinese philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Wood

A. M.

Linley

P. A.

Maltby

Kashdan

T. B.

Hurling

(2011). Using personal and psychological strengths leads to increases in well-being over time: A longitudinal study and the development of the strengths use questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 15–19. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.004

37.

World Health Organization. (2011). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved 25 November, 2011, from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/