exploring the relation between ego development & neo ... · lectical score (2010 - 2015) and...

The Lectica Team, with Bill Torbert and Susanne Cook-Greuter

Exploring the relation between Ego development & neo-Piagetian development:

Practical and theoretical implications

©2015, Lectica, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overview‣ Purpose ‣ Collaborative approach ‣ Background

- Developmental traditions - The Ego development tradition as exemplified in the Sentence

Completion Test - The Neo-Piagetian tradition as exemplified in Lectical Assessments ‣ Methods and results ‣ Interpretations by Dawson, Torbert, and Susanne

2

Setting the scene


Purpose‣ To explore key similarities and distinctions between the Ego

development and neo-Piagetian traditions: - theory - evidence

‣ To examine the extent to which the assessments built within these two traditions are measures of the same developmental dimension. ‣ To stimulate discussion about the meaning and implications

of our findings, in the interest of advancing the adult development field.

3

Body Level One


Collaborative approach‣ Collaborative research project including:

- MetaIntegral Academy - Lectica

‣ Consultative conversation: - Dr. Bill Torbert - Dr. Susanne Cook-Greuter - Dr. Theo Dawson

4

Setting the scene

Background

5

Dynamic web (Fischer & Bidell, 2006, pp. 331)

Spiral of development (Cook-Greuter, 1999, pp. 202)

Dynamics of Action-Logics (Torbert, 1999, pp. 80)


Four developmental traditions

6

Setting the scene

Psychodynamic Neo-Piagetian Holistic Spiritual

Freud Erickson

Miller Loevinger

Piaget Kohlberg Fowler

King & Kitchener Armon Fischer Case

Commons Dawson

Torbert Cook-Greuter

Joiner Kegan

Basseches

Aurobindo Wilber Wade

O’Fallon Wigglesworth


The MAP / GLP and Lectical Assessments (1 of 3)

7

Setting the scene: similarities and distinctions

MAP & GLP Lectical Assessments

Developmental model

‣ Loevinger tradition (bio-pycho-social) ‣ Skill theory (Fischer) (bio-psycho-social)

Construct(s) measured

‣ Centre of gravity, maturity of self /ego ‣ Hierarchical cognitive complexity ‣ Way of making sense of internal and

external experience

‣ Hierarchical integration as it manifests in order of hierarchical complexity (dynamic property of performance)

Dimensionality ‣ Multidimensional: - simultaneous assessment of multiple

dimensions of ego development

‣ Unidimensional: - one measure among many



8


MAP & GLP Lectical AssessmentsMechanism of development

‣ Dis-equilibration contributed to by environmental challenge and inner experience

‣ Reflective abstraction in response to dis-equilibration between the individual and the internal, social, or physical environment

The levels / stages / action logics

‣ 9 stages of ego / consciousness development (Impulsive through Unitive), adults only ‣ 7 action-logics measured

(Opportunist through Alchemical)

‣ 14 orders of hierarchical complexity (from Level 0 at birth to Level 13) ‣ For Level 6 through 12, there are

4 phases per level (a,b,c,d)

Age-range tested ‣ Adolescence to adult ‣ age 2 through adult



9


MAP & GLP Lectical AssessmentsRelations among theory and data

‣ Loevinger & Blasi’s ego development model, phenomenology (test-taker responses), and qualitative analysis in ongoing dialogue with test takers

‣ Theory (skill theory) and models (VCoL+7) are integrated with phenomenological (test-taker responses) and quantitative (psychometric) methods.

Typical framing ‣ “John’s center of gravity is at the Transforming action-logic” (Torbert) ‣ “John’s center of gravity is

Strategist today, and based on what we see in his performance, we expect that he…” (Cook-Greuter)

‣ “John demonstrated phase 10d decision-making skills on this assessment, at this time, in this context. His performance suggests that engaging in these practices and learning this knowledge and these skills will optimally support his growth.”


Validity of Assessment Approaches (1 of 3)

10



Relation to other developmental assessments

‣ Correlates with other types of developmental assessments in the .25 to .40 range ‣ Other measures have been

normed with the MAP e.g. SQ21 (alpha = .86)and StAGES (alpha = .85)

‣ Several published studies showing strong correlations (.75 to .90) with longitudinally validated measures like Moral Judgment, Good Life, and Reflective Judgment

Quantitative evidence supporting sequence

‣ Several psychometric studies (Loevinger) showing that levels unfold in the theorized sequence

‣ Several published studies demonstrating that levels unfold in the theorized sequence



11



Psychometric evidence of hierarchical complexity

‣ Recent dissertation from Germany including psychometric analysis

‣ Several published studies showing evidence of developmental discontinuities at transitions between levels

Qualitative evidence of hierarchical complexity

‣ Several dissertations showing the qualitatively distinct capacities of each subsequent level

‣ Several refereed journal articles and dissertations describing the new ways of thinking that characterize each level

Inter-rater agreement ‣ Inter-rater agreement 95% within one stage (Cook-Greuter)

‣ Human inter-rater agreement maintained at a minimum of 85% within 1/5 of a level



12



Statistical reliability (internal consistency)

‣ Cronbach’s Alphas between .77 and .95

‣ Rasch person performance reliabilities between .92 and .97

Predictive / external validity

‣ MAP predicted leaders’ effectiveness at driving business transforming (McGuire & Rhodes) ‣ Several studies support the

external validity of the previous iteration of the GLP (called the LDF), e.g. level of action logic predicted the likelihood of successful organizational transformation

‣ Leaders who have higher scores on Lectical Assessments are more likely to have been entrusted with higher level positions ‣ Leaders who demonstrate more

growth on the LDMA are more likely to exhibit improved decision-making skills, as reported by co-workers.

Methods

13


Materials: programs and assessments

‣ JFKU Master’s of Integral Theory - Theory and practice of AQAL Theory

(including Integral Life Practice) - Two year masters - Predominantly online with residential

intensives ‣ Instruments used:

- SCTi (Integral Life Studio) - Lectical Assessments (LSUA, LIMA,

LDMA)

14

Methods: materials

‣ Embodied Practitioner Certification (EPC) Program: - Application of integral and embodied

leadership to a chosen project - Delivered via three five-day workshops,

study, reflection, coaching and daily practices ‣ Instruments used:

- SCTi (Professional Version) - Global Leadership Profile (GLP) - Lectical Assessments (LDMA, LIMA, LDPA,

LSUA)

JFKU EPC


Core research question‣ Do Ego Development

assessments and Lectical Assessments measure the same dimension of performance?

Put another way… ‣ If the same group people take an

ego development assessment (SCTi or GLP) and a Lectical Assessment, to what extent are their scores likely to be correlated?

15

Methods: research questions

Ego development assessments

Lectical Assessments

SCTiGLP

LDMA LSUA


Participants: sample and demographics

‣ Total number of people who completed at least one ego assessment and at least one Lectical Assessment (N=72) ‣ Sex

- male = 42 (58%) - female = 30 (42%)

‣ Birth year - 1940 - 1949 = 4 (5%) - 1950 - 1959 = 7 (10%) - 1960 - 1969 = 22 (31%) - 1970 - 1979 = 29 (40%) - 1980 - 1989 = 9 (14%)

16

Methods: participants

‣ Education - High-school and Bachelor = 19 (26%) - Masters = 41 (58%) - Doctoral = 7 (10%) - Other Professional = 4 (6%) ‣ Language

- English = 45 (63%) - Western European = 7 (9%) - Central Europe & Russia = 10 (14%) - Other = 10 (14%)

JFKU EPC


The instruments

17

Methods: instruments

MAP & GLP Lectical AssessmentsItem type ‣ Complete sentence stems

- MAP usually 36 - GLP usually 30

‣ Write paragraph-length responses to 5-7 prompts

Assessment instructions

‣ Instructed to respond spontaneously - no right or wrong answers

‣

‣ Instructed to explain the rationale for claims and judgments. - no right or wrong answers.

Constraints ‣ Timed. 60 min for 36-item version of MAP ‣ Timed 60 mins for 30-item

GLP

‣ Untimed ‣ Minimum and maximum word lengths for

responses (varies by assessment and age group).

Example prompts ‣ When I am criticized... ‣ Being with other people...

‣ People disagree about the dangers of violent television. Is there any way to determine which perspective is accurate? Why or why not?

Analyses & results

18


Distribution of ego development scores

19

Analyses & results

* Z Scores for Skewness are compared to a critical value for Z at p < .05 of 1.96

N Min Max Central tendency SD Skew*

Ogive 96 Diplomat Unitive Strategist (mode)

NA 1.13

TWS 96 204 336 274 (mean)

27.18 0.09

TPR 106 Expert Unitive Strategist (mode)

NA 0.00


Distribution of Lectical scores

20

Analyses & results

* Z Scores for Skewness are compared to a critical value for Z at p <. 05 of 1.96

N Min Max Central tendency SD Skew*

Lectical Scores (continuous scale)

177 10.90 advanced

linear thinking

12.32 early

principles thinking

11.55 (mean)

0.26 1.89

Lectical Scores (ordinal phases)

177 10d advanced

linear thinking

12b early

principles thinking

11b (mode)

NA 1.74


Data manipulation‣ No data transformations were required due to normality of data

distributions ‣ Parametric (Pearson’s R) and non-parametric (Spearman’s Rho)

correlations were calculated: - However, Pearson’s R and Spearman’s Rho did not yield

substantially different results, so only Pearson’s R is reported ‣ For TPRs, analyses were undertaken with both SCT and GLP

considered together and separately. - There were only 12 GLPs in the current sample - Only where SCT and GLP yielded different outcomes are the result

for both assessments reported. In all other instances results are collapsed.

21

Analyses & results


Refresher on correlations‣ How do we know if two

assessments are measuring the same thing? - To make this claim, correlations

need to be be very high. - Usually, the more appropriate

question is, “To what extent are two assessments measuring the same thing?”

22

Method: procedure

Figure 1, r = .20

Figure 2, r = .50 Figure 3, r = .80


Comparison of all LectaTests with SCTs, all test times‣ Insert picture of scatterplot

23

Results

‣ Automatic Ogive - There was a nonsignificant correlation between Mean

Lectical Score (2010 - 2015) and Median Ogive (2010 - 2015) (r(58)=.16, p > .05)

‣ TWS - There was a nonsignificant correlation between Mean

Lectical Score (2010 - 2015) and Mean TWS (2010 - 2015) (r(58) =-0.01, p > .05)

‣ TPR - There was a nonsignificant correlation between Mean

Lectical Score (2010 - 2015) and Median TPR (SCTs and GLP) (2010 - 2015) (r(69) = .23, p >.05)

- There was significant correlation between Mean Lectical Score (2010 - 2015) and Median TPR (GLP only) (r(10) =.66, p < .05)


Comparison of LSUA scores with SCT scores‣ Insert picture of scatterplot

24

Results

‣ Automatic Ogive - There was a nonsignificant correlation between

Mean LSUA Score (2010 - 2015) and Median Ogive (2010 - 2015) (r(36) = .11, p > .05)

‣ TWS - There was a nonsignificant correlation between

Mean LSUA Score (2010 - 2015) and Mean TWS (2010 - 2015) (r(36) = -.14, p > .05)

‣ TPR - There was a nonsignificant correlation between

Mean LSUA Score (2010 - 2015) and Median TPR (2010 - 2015) (r(35) = .14, p > .05)


Comparison of all LectaTests with SCT Ogive (by year)

25

Body Level One

Median Ogive (2010 - 2011)



Mean Lectical Score (2010-2011)

Nonsignificant correlation

(r(28 )= .24, p > .05)

NA NA


NA Significant correlation (r(25) = .40, p < .05)

NA


NA NA Nonsignificant correlation (r(17) = .20, p > .05)


Comparison of all LectaTests with SCT TWS (by year)

26

Body Level One

Mean TWS (2010 - 2011)

Mean TWS (2012 - 2013)

Mean TWS (2014 - 2015)



(r(28) = .20, p > .05)

NA NA



NA


NA NA Nonsignificant correlation (r(17)= -.02, p > .05)


Comparison of all LectaTests with SCT TPR (by year)

27

Results

Median TPR (2010 - 2011)

Median TPR (2012 - 2013)

Median TPR (2014 - 2015)



(r(27) = .25, p > .05)

NA NA



NA


NA NA Significant correlation (r(29) = .58, p < .05)


Representations of development

28

Appendix

Dynamic web (Fischer & Bidell, 2006, pp. 331)

Spiral of development (Cook-Greuter, 1999, pp. 202)

Dynamics of Action-Logics (Torbert, 1999, pp. 80)

Summary and next steps

29


In sum…‣ The developmental models that underpin Ego Development

Assessments and Lectical Assessments have similarities and differences. ‣ The evidence presented here suggests that the Ego

Development assessments and Lectical Assessments may be tapping the same dimension of performance—at least to an extent—but that our small and admittedly non-representative sample may be limiting our ability to see this relationship clearly.

30

Discussion


Open questions and next steps‣ Do the correlations reported here reflect the true relation between ego

development stages and Lectical levels? - Examine the GLT and MAP independently. - Do a direct comparison of SCT scores with Lectical scores by using Lectica’s

computerized scoring system to score a larger and more representative set of SCT performances.

- Conduct item analyses of SCT data to determine if there is evidence in item behavior that might be obscuring the relation between the two types of assessments.

‣ Does the multidimensionality of Ego Development assessments interfere with our ability to “see” the hierarchical complexity dimension? - Examine the underlying factor structure of representative sets of Ego

Development scores to determine if we can differentiate the hierarchical complexity dimension from other measured dimensions.

31

Discussion


Questions for reflection and discussion‣ Are Ego Development and Lectical Assessments measuring

distinct dimensions of human growth? - If so, what are these dimensions?

‣ Is there anything in this report or our results that would help you decide which kind of assessment would be most useful in particular contexts? ‣ Are there ways in which we might include both approaches in

a meta-theory of human-growth? ‣ What might this mean for integral theory?

32

Discussion

Thank you.

33

exploring the relation between ego development & neo ... · lectical score (2010 - 2015) and...

Documents