Journal of Beliefs & Values

Studies in Religion & Education

ISSN: 1361-7672 (Print) 1469-9362 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjbv20

Toward a reliable and valid measure of

institutional mission and values perception: the
DePaul values inventory

Joseph R. Ferrari & Shaun E. Cowman

To cite this article: Joseph R. Ferrari & Shaun E. Cowman (2004) Toward a reliable and valid
measure of institutional mission and values perception: the DePaul values inventory, Journal of
Beliefs & Values, 25:1, 43-54, DOI: 10.1080/1361767042000198979

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1361767042000198979

Published online: 22 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 570

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjbv20
Journal of Beliefs & Values, Vol. 25, No. 1, April 2004

Toward a Reliable and Valid Measure of

Institutional Mission and Values
Perception: the DePaul Values Inventory
JOSEPH R. FERRARI & SHAUN E. COWMAN
Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60614, USA

ABSTRACT Across three studies, the development of a reliable and valid measure of
perceptions by students of an urban, private, faith-based teaching university’s mission and
values was assessed. Study 1 presented scale construction and reliability of the DePaul
Values Inventory (DeVI) with undergraduates (n ⫽ 111), yielding a final 22-item rating
scale with four subscales. Study 2 supported the psychometric structure of the DeVI through
a confirmatory factor analysis (n ⫽ 292). Study 3 assessed the DeVI’s discriminant
validity by correlating scores with social desirability and personal values surveys (n ⫽ 106).
Overall, the DeVI was determined to be a reliable and valid measure of students’
perceptions of an institution’s mission and values, regardless of student gender, and
independent of one’s personal values even controlling for social approval tendencies. Future
studies should examine the DeVI and its applicability for other similar institutions of higher
learning.

Family, peers, and social systems typically educate citizens in personal and social
value structures (Feather, 1970, 1975). Global political and business corruption,
however, has fueled a call for academic institutions to take on the role of values
education in ethics, morality, and pro-social behaviors (Sullivan & Dockstader,
1978). Values education in both psychology and education includes the teaching of
critical thinking skills linked to morality and ethics and may be related to a person’s
values (Halstead & Taylor, 2000; Nucci & Weber, 1991).
Several approaches to teaching values to students have been developed. For
instance, Maples (1982) proposed training programs for teachers that included
content knowledge, techniques and methods, processes and systems, and reinforce-
ment or acceptance of new values. Brooks and Kann (1993) outlined instruction
associated with specific behaviors reflective of values, and Young and Elfrink (1991)
developed an informal classroom system where teachers role model appropriate
behaviors for whatever values the institution agrees upon. Regardless of the instruc-
tional strategies aimed at teaching value-related topics, the instructor must try not
to express his/her own values but indicate differences in values and point out those

ISSN 1361-7672 print; 1469-9362 online/04/010043-12  2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1361767042000198979
44 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

values that are important to personal growth and productive citizenship (Veugelers,
2000).
Value education, however, is usually carried out implicitly and interwoven in the
day-to-day interactions between student and educator with an emphasis placed on
defining rather incorporating values (Halstead & Taylor, 2000). Moreover, some
educators and researchers believe that academic disciplines should not endorse nor
perpetuate value clarification: instead, higher education must be value-free (Rybicki,
1996). At best, an instructor is a neutral guide charged with explaining concepts
leaving the determination of ethics, morality, and values to the individual student.
Although the role of academic institutions in teaching values to students has been
one of controversy, we believe it also is one of necessity (Arthur, 1998). We propose
that newer approaches and assessment of values must include the impact of social
institutions such as communities, organizations, and schools on value appropriate
behavior. These social systems play a prominent role in values education and
evaluating the impact these organizations have on students may be informative to
administrators of higher education. For example, evaluating how much an insti-
tution’s mission and values affects its students may be helpful in program evaluation
of educational policies and administrative operations and in ascertaining the impact
of community-based service learning programs. In short, we propose that the level
of analysis in understanding values include evaluating individual value systems and
how institutions effectively express their values to members of their organization
(e.g. the student body as a whole). In terms of colleges and university settings,
examining student perception of their institutions’ mission and values is useful for
assessing academic programs, institutional operations, and student services.

Assessing Institutional Mission and Values in Higher Education

The topic of values education and institutional assessment is becoming prevalent in
institutions of higher learning (e.g. Burtchaell, 1998; Murphy, 1991). In his book
The Dying of the Light, Burtchaell (1998) discussed the indirect and slow erosion of
values education by the disengagement of private colleges and universities from their
church affiliations. University mission statements that once included words like
‘values, morals, and congregational affiliations’ now give way to words like ‘indepen-
dent, coeducational, and residential’. Consider, for example, an excerpt under
‘Mission Statement’ from the 1985 Student Handbook of Lafayette College (PA):
Lafayette College seeks to promote the continued intellectual, imaginative
emotional, and spiritual growth of its students and faculty. The College
sustains a concern with human meaning and values, a concern animated by
its traditional—though now attenuated—ties with the Presbyterian Church.
(p. 176)
In 1993 that Handbook stated that ‘Today, Lafayette is an independent, coedu-
cational, residential, undergraduate institution with a faculty of distinction …’
(p. 176)—no mention of its religious affiliation or the notion of values was included.
There has been no systematic assessment tool that examined how institutional
 Institutional Values Inventory 45

values may be perceived or understood by students. We define institutional values

within higher education settings as goals and outcomes, as well as procedural
operations, which are actualized to students and staff reflecting the identifiable
benchmarks of the organization. Institutional values are conveyed through adminis-
trative operations, academic programs and policies, and student services. Further-
more, institutional values should be related to the common mission and expressed in
the mission statement of the college and university.
Our approach to institutional value assessment was more than simply monitoring
university handbooks for changes in mission statement, or observing classroom
instruction and reading course syllabi. Instead, we created a reliable and valid
self-report instrument for students to evaluate perceptions of their institution’s
mission and values across three empirical investigations. The first study outlined the
initial construction of our instrument, the DePaul Values Inventory (DeVI), while
the second and third studies examined different aspects of the DeVI’s construct
validity. We believe the DeVI provides a useful tool that may be practical for other
similar institutions to adopt.

Study 1: scale construction

DePaul University is a private teaching university with over 23,000 students edu-
cated across several metropolitan campuses in the Chicago, IL, area. The univer-
sity’s benchmark characteristics are an ‘urban, Catholic, and Vincentian’ institution
and it expresses its vision through the values inherent to these concepts. The urban
mission and values of the university are expressed by delivering quality education to
locations in and immediately around the city of Chicago. The university states that
it expresses its Catholic mission and values by direct service to the poor and
economically disenfranchised through such programs as actively engaging students
in volunteer and community service directed at impoverished communities. Murphy
(1991) noted that although it is a Roman Catholic school of higher education like
other institutions, DePaul University invoked Vincentianism (referring to the name-
sake of the school, St Vincent DePaul) through respect for human dignity, diversity,
and individual ‘personalism’. The DePaul Values Inventory (DeVI) was created to
examine student perceptions of DePaul University’s institutional mission and val-
ues.

Method
Participants, psychometric scales, and procedure. Three separate samples of students
were initially used to generate and construct the scale. The first sample focused on
the scale’s initial item pool, producing 88 items. The second sample served to
streamline the scale for brevity and to achieve higher reliability, reducing the number
of items to 47. The first author received feedback on the 47-item DeVI version from
three experts in psycho-educational measurement. These reviewers recommended
items within each subscale that may be removed yet might have minimal impact on
internal consistency, yielding a 22-item measure with 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly
46 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree), to increase response variability. A shorter version of the

DeVI was developed to create a brief measure that may easily be administered across
varied student samples and settings.
The final 22-item revision of the DeVI was administered to 111 undergraduates
(79 women, 32 men; M age ⫽ 19.7 years old; SD ⫽ 1.4) who were enrolled in an
introductory psychology class. Respondents also completed a measure of social
desirability (SD: Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), a 33-item, true–false format scale, used
to ascertain whether students were providing socially appropriate responses (sample
item: ‘There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone’).

Results
A factor analysis (varimax rotation) produced four factors, with eigen values greater
than 1.00 that explained 67% of the variance. No significant gender differences
across the four subscale factor scores were obtained, and there were no significant
relationships to social desirability (p ⬍ .10). These four subscales included: institu-
tional values (9 items; alpha r ⫽ 0.87; M score ⫽ 44.15; SD ⫽ 17.17), which assessed
perceptions that the University academic values and mission apparent to students;
emphasis on diversity (3 items; alpha r ⫽ 0.83; M score ⫽ 14.55; SD ⫽ 3.20), the
perception that the University provides access and opportunity for persons of color
and women; pro-social general altruistic atmosphere (7 items; alpha r ⫽ 0.87; M
score ⫽ 33.25; SD ⫽ 10.21), which assessed perceptions that the University opera-
tions tries to create a friendly helping environment; and, life-long commitment to
values (3 items; alpha r ⫽ 0.65; M score ⫽ 13.28; SD ⫽ 2.22), which assessed Uni-
versity goals to instill the pursuits for knowledge across the lifespan. Appendix 1
presents the actual items that composed the final 22-item DeVI.

Discussion
This first study discussed the development of a reliable self-report instrument, called
the DeVI, designed to assess student perceptions of an urban, Catholic, and
faith-driven university. There were no significant gender differences on the four
subscales on the DeVI and scale scores were not related to social desirability
tendencies. It might be argued that the lower alpha on the fourth subscale could be
attributed to the small number of items within the subscale. However, this possibil-
ity is unlikely because, with that same sample, the second subscale that contained
only three items had a high coefficient alpha. The results indicated a useful, brief
instrument appropriate for use with young adult college students enrolled at an
urban, faith-based university.

Study 2: construct validity

Our first study presented the initial stages of scale construction of a new, reliable
self-report instrument that assessed how students perceived their university’s mis-
sion and values, called the DePaul Values Inventory (DeVI). A second study
 Institutional Values Inventory 47

examined the 22-item DeVI’s validity with an additional sample of undergraduates.

In Study 2 a confirmatory factor analysis determined if the four-factor structure of
the DeVI reported in Study 1 remained intact. It was expected that the DeVI would
maintain its current four-factor structure.

Method
Participants and procedure. Participants (n ⫽ 292) were young adult (age
range ⫽ 18–21 years old) students enrolled in introductory psychology that were
tested in a large group session. Unfortunately, no further demographic data were
obtained because of restrictions imposed by the department’s large testing process.
After returning a signed consent form during the large testing session participants
completed the DeVI embedded in a large survey packet containing several unrelated
scales, presented in counterbalanced order. Participants were given 30 minutes to
complete the packet, and none of these students participated in Study 1.

Results
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using LISREL (Gorsuch, 1983), to
examine the DeVI’s construct validity. Raw scores were first converted to z-scores
to determine if the data were skewed. An analysis of the data showed great amounts
of skewness and kurtosis (z-scores greater than 3); therefore, the data were
normalized. Normalized data was then revaluated for univariate normality and all
z-scores were 3 or less. Subsequently, structural equations for each factor were
examined using maximum likelihood to estimate the model fit of the data to the four
factors of the DeVI because it is the most common method of estimation for interval
data corrected (transformed) for normality (Gorsuch, 1983).
Fit-indices most commonly examined with this type of estimation are the chi-
square, normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), goodness of fit index
(GFI), and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI; Schumaker & Lomax, 1996).
A chi-square test tested whether the model fits the data (i.e. supports the null
hypothesis). Chi-square for the model was significant,
2(191, n ⫽ 265) ⫽ 289.71,
p. ⫽ 0.00001. Figure 1 illustrates the fit indices and the path diagram for the
participants. All fit indices were 0.88 and above, which suggests a good fit between
the model and the data (NFI ⫽ 0.90, NNFI ⫽ 0.95, GFI ⫽ 0.91, AGFI ⫽ 0.88).
Error terms between the items (e.g. for Institutional Values, DeVI1 and DeVI 11)
were allowed to co-vary within but not across subscales.

Discussion
The DeVI’s current four-subscale-factor structure was upheld by a confirmatory
factor analysis, thereby supporting the construct validity of the measure. The fit of
the current proposed four-factor model also gives further evidence of the importance
of the fourth DeVI subscale (Life-long Commitment to Values); without it, the
48 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

FIG. 1. Path diagram and fit indices for the DePaul Values Inventory.

DeVI model does not fit the data. Therefore, it may again be argued that even with
a low, but acceptable, coefficient alpha, the fourth subscale should be included.
All fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis showed the DeVI as a valid
measure; however, some questions may be raised about the significance of the
chi-square fit index (p ⬍ 0.00001). Although a significant chi-square may illustrate a
bad fit between the model and the data, it may also be a product of having too much
power (i.e. our sample size of 292 participants far exceeded the suggested critical N
 Institutional Values Inventory 49

size for proposed model of 211), which may give a false positive (see Schumaker &
Lomax, 1996). Therefore, the current significance level of the chi-square might have
been an artifact caused by too much power. Consequently, we used other models to
determine fit (e.g. NNFI, GFI, and these models also supported the results with the
chi square analysis indicating that our obtained results were valid.

Study 3: discriminant validity

Previous measures of values focused on either individual or cultural values (e.g.
Rokeach, 1980; Schwartz, 1992). The DeVI, however, measured perceptions to-
ward institutional values. Study 3 determined if the values measured by the DeVI
were indeed perceptions of institutional and not individual values. It was expected
that scores from the DeVI would not significantly correlate with scores from a
well-known measure that assessed personal value systems, controlling for social
desirability.

Method
Participants. Participants for Study 3 were 106 introductory psychology students
(41 men, M age ⫽ 20.61 years old, SD ⫽ 5.50; 65 women, M age ⫽ 19.85 years old,
SD ⫽ 2.59). Most participants (53%) were Caucasian and enrolled in lower division
classes (86%). Nearly half of the students lived mostly in urban areas (48%) and
none were participants in Study 1 or 2.

Psychometric measures and procedures. During an introductory psychology class,

participants were distributed a packet that contained a consent form, a demograph-
ics form (age, gender, race), the 22-item DeVI, and two other psychometric
inventories (all three measures in counterbalanced order). Participants completed
Paulhus’s (1984) 20-item, 7-point (1 ⫽ not true; 7 ⫽ very true) subscale of the
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) that examined socially desir-
able responding, called impression management (current alpha r ⫽ 0.82; M
score ⫽ 74.63; sample item, ‘I never cover up my mistakes’). Additionally, partici-
pants completed Schwartz’s (1992) 57-item Personal Value Survey, assessing indi-
vidual values. Respondents ranked the first 30 items from most personally important
too least personally important. Each value item was rated from –1 (‘opposed to my
values’) to 0 (‘not important’) to 7 (‘of supreme importance’). Individuals then
ranked the second list of values (27 items) using the same rating system, but now
according values believed to be guiding principles in their lives. Based on their
ratings, a total of 10 subscales compiled individual value structure (e.g. Conformity,
Universalism, and Security) and 7 subscales represented cultural value structure (e.g.
Embededness, Mastery, and Harmony). Sample value items from the lists include:
politeness, self-discipline, and obedient (Conformity) and ambitious, daring, and
successful (Mastery).
50 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

TABLE I. Mean Scores and Reliability Coefficients on the DeVI and Schwartz Value Survey in
Study 3

Number of
Items Alpha M

DeVI subscales:
Institutional Values 9 [.85] 36.73 (9.55)
Emphasis on Diversity 3 [.86] 12.54 (3.82)
Pro-social Institutional Atmosphere 7 [.89] 35.00 (7.72)
Life-long Commitment to Values 3 [.64] 14.84 (3.45)
Schwartz Personal Value Survey subscales:
Conformity 4 [.75] 20.58 (4.65)
Tradition 5 [.60] 21.04 (5.72)
Benevolence 5 [.78] 27.22 (4.59)
Universalism 8 [.80] 37.76 (8.26)
Self-Direction 5 [.68] 26.27 (4.54)
Stimulation 3 [.70] 12.58 (4.30)
Hedonism 3 [.75] 14.07 (4.10)
Achievement 4 [.69] 21.47 (6.63)
Power 4 [.63] 12.20 (6.33)
Security 5 [.40] 24.34 (5.13)

n ⫽ 106
Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations

Results
Discriminant validity was examined in Study 3 by correlating subscale scores from
the DeVI with Schwartz’s (1992) Value Survey, controlling for social desirability
scores with Paulhus’s (1984) measure. Mean scores and coefficient alphas for each
subscale from each measure administered in the third study are presented in Table
I. As noted from the table, the impression management subscale of the BIDR
significantly correlated with the first and fourth DeVI subscales (Institutional Values
and Institutional Impact). Therefore, partial correlations (controlling for impression
management) were conducted between personal values as assessed by Schwartz’s
measure and institutional values from the DeVI. Table II presents zero-order and
partial correlation coefficients between the DeVI subscales and Schwartz’s Value
Survey subscales. With this sample, even after controlling for social desirability, only
one subscale from Schwartz’s Personal Value Survey (Achievement) significantly
correlated with only one DeVI subscale (Institutional Impact), suggesting that these
self-report measures assess different concepts (see Table II).

Discussion
Although the DeVI is believed to measure an organization’s values, one subscale was
significantly related to a personal value, as assessed on Schwartz’s (1992) measure.
In Study 3, the personal value of Achievement was related to institutional values of
 Institutional Values Inventory 51

TABLE II. Zero-order and Partial Correlates Between the DeVI and Schwartz Value Survey

DePaul Values Inventory

Emphasis Life-long
Institutional on Institutional Value
Valuesa Diversity Atmosphere Commitmenta

Paulhus Balanced Inventory of

Desirable Responding subscale:
Impression Management .23* ⫺ .07 .18 .23*
Schwartz Personal Value Survey
subscales:
Conformity .15 ⫺ .03 .09 .19
Tradition ⫺ .03 .03 ⫺ .10 ⫺ .03
Benevolence .13 .06 .02 .10
Universalism .03 .19 ⫺ .03 ⫺ .15
Self Direction .02 .01 ⫺ .03 ⫺ .02
Stimulation .07 ⫺ .05 .05 ⫺ .04
Hedonism .05 ⫺ .16 .06 ⫺ .06
Achievement .08 ⫺ .02 .11 .24*
Power .06 ⫺ .18 .06 .10

n ⫽ 106, *p. ⬍ .05

Notes. Security subscale was not included, because alpha was ⬍ 0.60
a
partial correlations, controlling for Impression Management scores

Life-long Commitment to Values (see Table II), even when controlling for social
desirability. Perhaps, personal achievement is a concept that college students and
their academic institution both strive and value. Institutions of higher education
should place a strong emphasis on academic achievement for their students as a goal
for their mission, and it is desirable for students to emphasize high achievement
within academic settings.

General Conclusion
The current study examined a measure called the DePaul Values Inventory (DeVI),
designed to assess student perceptions of institutional mission and values. The
DeVI was a reliable and valid measure across several samples of students. This
new, brief measure might be a useful assessment tool when examining an insti-
tution’s ability to effectively incorporate a values education curriculum. For exam-
ple, one of our University’s goals is to actualize to students the value of diversity,
personalism, and engagement in civic service. These values are at the heart of
DePaul University’s values education, and the assessment of students’ perceptions
by the DeVI may help administrators at DePaul (or other institution with a similar
mission and values) understand how effective the institution is at promoting that
goal.
52 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

Future Directions
Future studies may examine the limitations reported in the present research. For
instance, the low reliability of the fourth DeVI subscale may be improved by adding
more items to this subscale to increase the fit of the model. We are in the process
of assessing the impact on scale reliability and validity of three more items, yielding
a total measure of 25 questions rated along 7-point scales. Another possible
direction is adding open-ended questions to the survey, to capture qualitative
responses from respondents. We are in the process of collecting that data. Further-
more, future studies might examine possible criteria for evaluating behavioral
outcomes linked to values education. Behavioral outcomes of direct student per-
formance along with DeVI scores may enable a linkage between institutional mission
and how students actualize those self-report responses. We are in the process of
collecting additional validity information on the DeVI through systematic programs
utilized at the University.
In conclusion, the DeVI takes a new approach to values assessment by focusing
on organizational perceptions of institutions, instead of solely individual difference
factors in personal value structures (e.g. Rokeach, 1980; Schwartz, 1992). By
including quantitative measures like the DeVI, higher education institutions (es-
pecially those with urban, private, faith-based benchmarks) may assess their own
ability to reach their students, and determine the effectiveness of their values
education.

Authors’ Note
Funding for this project was made possible in part through a DePaul Executive
Office & Academic Affairs fund awarded the first author and through supplies
provided by a Hays Gift on ‘Vincentian Leadership’. Portions of Studies 2 and
Study 3 were the second author’s Master’s thesis under the supervision of the first
author. The authors express much gratitude to Fr. Ed Udovic, Drs John Lane,
Richard Meister, Joseph Filkins, J. Patrick Murphy, and John Kozak. Gratitude also
is expressed to Gary Harper, Thomas J. Gors, and Penny Ayers who provided
insight, guidance, feedback, and support for these projects. Direct correspondence
to the first author at the Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North
Kenmore Ave, Chicago, IL, 60614: jferrari@depaul.edu

References
ARTHUR, J. (1998) Communitarism: what are the implications for education?, Educational Studies,
24, pp. 353–368.
BROOKS, B.D. & KANN, M.E. (1993) The schools’ role in weaving values back into the fabric of
society, Education Digest, 58, pp. 67–71.
BURTCHAELL, J.T. (1998) The Dying of the Light: the disengagement of colleges and universities from
their Christian churches (Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing).
 Institutional Values Inventory 53

CROWNE, D.P. & MARLOWE, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, pp. 349–354.
FEATHER, N.T. (1970) Educational choice and student attitudes in relation to terminal and
instrumental values, Australian Journal of Psychology, 22, pp. 127–144.
FEATHER, N.T. (1975) Values in Education and Society (New York, Free Press).
GORSUCH, R. L. (1983) Factor Analysis, 2nd edn. (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
HALSTEAD, J.M. & TAYLOR, M.J. (2000) Learning and teaching about values: a review of recent
research, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, pp. 169–202.
MAPLES, M.F. (1982) Values education-clarification: some critical questions, Counseling & Values,
26, pp. 264–269.
MURPHY, J.P. (1991) Visions and Values in Catholic Higher Education (Kansas City, MO, Sheed &
Ward).
NUCCI, L. & WEBER, E.K. (1991) The domain approach to values education: from theory to
practice, in: W.M. KURTINES & J.L. GEWIRTZ (Eds) Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development. Vol. 1: Theory. Vol. 2: Research. Vol. 3: Application, pp. 251–266. (Hillsdale,
NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
PAULHUS, D.L. (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable responding, Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 46, pp. 598–609.
ROKEACH, M. (1980) Value Survey (Sunnyvale, CA, Halgren Tests).
RYBICKI, D.J. (1996) Morality, values, and education: psychology’s role, in: C.E. STOUT (Ed.) The
Integration of Psychological Principles in Policy Development, pp. 185–195 (Westport, CT,
Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group).
SCHUMAKER, R.E. & LOMAX, R.G. (1996) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling
(Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
SCHWARTZ, S.H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries, in: M.P. ZANNA (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–65 (Orlando, FL, Academic Press).
SULLIVAN, P.J. & DOCKSTADER, M.F. (1978) Values education and American schools: worlds in
collision?, Character Potential: a Record of Research, 8, pp. 226–235.
VEUGELERS, W. (2000) Different ways of teaching values, Educational Review, 52, pp. 37–46.
YOUNG, R.B. & ELFRINK, V.L. (1991) Values education in student affairs graduate programs,
Journal of College Student Development, 32, pp. 109–115.

Appendix: the DePaul Values Scale (DeVI)

Institutional Values Items

—1. The DePaul mission is apparent to me.

—2. The Vincentian values inherent in the University’s mission are clear to me.
—6. Catholic values are generally found in the culture of DePaul University.
—7. Vincentian values (the values of personalism and respect for the dignity of the human person,
inspired by the University’s patron, St Vincent DePaul) are generally foundin the culture at
DePaul.
—8. The University’s values are evident to me in the overall quality of student services.
—9. The University’s values are expressed through the University ministry.
—10. The University’s values are expressed in the way that I am treated in the office of financial
aid and services.
—11. The University’s values are expressed through the personal attention I receive in academic
advising.
—15. The University’s values are evident in the assistance I have received when I have been in
the offices of career planning and development.
54 J. R. Ferrari & S. E. Cowman

Emphasis on Diversity Items

—3. DePaul should have a special emphasis on recruiting minority students.
—4. DePaul should have a special emphasis on recruiting minority faculty.
—5. DePaul should have more women faculty members.
Pro-social Institutional Atmosphere Items
—12. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes respect for the dignity of others.
—13. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes service to others.
—14. The atmosphere at DePaul advocates diversity among people.
—16. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes reaching out to the needy.
—17. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes being a community among students, staff, and faculty.
—18. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes a sense of responsibility to the City of Chicago, its
issues and its members.
—19. The atmosphere at DePaul promotes respect for the principles of others.
Life-long Commitment to Values Items
—20. I foresee that my life direction and career choices will be guided by my personal values.
—21. Being a student at DePaul has helped me to shape and clarify the values by which I will
make life choices.
—22. I foresee that Vincentian values will have a continued influence throughout my life.
Note: Items were interspersed in the actual instrument. Respondents were instructed to rate each
statement as it pertained to them along a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree; 7 ⫽ strongly agree).