been sufficiently well validated—even if it is in a setting other than research—to warrant adaptation to the research environment.
In summary, measures that meet the following criteria are included: (1) they are theoretically well grounded in a model of morality that demonstrates the relationship between aspects of integrity and behavior; (2) they meet or exceed the minimal criteria for validity and reliability; (3) they have been successfully used to assess learning outcomes for adults either in research ethics programs or in professional ethics programs; (4) they have been used effectively to assess institutional effectiveness in promoting one or more aspects of integrity; and (5) the method of measurement is appropriate for assessment of an aspect of integrity in the research environment, even though the content of the measure may be specific to another discipline. Note that this discussion does not include measures or tests that assess content knowledge of the rules related to the conduct of research, measures that assess perceptions of the integrity of others (e.g., survey instruments designed for the Acadia Institute study), or measures designed to assess the norms of scientists with respect to misconduct and questionable research practices (Bebeau and Davis, 1996; Korenman et al., 1998). The latter might serve as a resource for the development of items for use in a survey of the moral climate of an institution or for items for assessment of role concept development.
Two bodies of literature contribute to the understanding of moral climate and its importance for the assessment of integrity in the research environment. The first is the literature on individual moral development, indicating that individual characteristics are not sufficient as an explanation for ethical behavior. Thus, efforts to influence behavior by focusing on the development of abilities related to decision making may be necessary, but not sufficient, to affect integrity in the research environment. The second is the literature on organizational culture and climate that highlights the different kinds of cultures that may be operating in the environment. There is a growing belief that organizations are social actors responsible for the ethical or unethical behaviors of their employees. In fact, corporations (Bowen and Power, 1993) have been held responsible under the law for acts of malfeasance and misfeasance engaged in by employees, sometimes even when the acts of those employees were beyond the scope of their employment. Such instances prompted scholars in the field of organizational development to turn their attention to the assessment of moral climate and to an analysis of the effects of moral climate on decision making.