Kristian Merckoll
Abstract: This article examines two empirical studies which are referred to as validating the STAGES scoring system. The verification claims do not hold up under scrutiny, and the wrong conclusions were reached because the statistical calculations were not grounded in an adequate understanding of the relevant aspects of the scoring theory itself. This is shown by applying simple descriptive statistics that does not require any statistical background to understand. In the subsequent discussion on possible reasons for why the STAGES scoring system has too much scoring error, the conclusion is that a major root problem is that STAGES has defined itself as an extension of an existing developmental construct (EDT, Ego Developmental Theory). This notion must therefore be reconsidered. Standard calculations are provided to demonstrate effects of too much scoring error. The article further discusses the limitation in using only language as the means to assess the latest stages in the STAGES model. A distinction between the STAGES theory and the STAGES scoring system is maintained throughout, and the theory is not discussed or questioned directly. The position is taken that EDT and STAGES should continue to develop alongside each other as two related, yet different, developmental models.
Tags: Anecdotal evidence, constructivist developmental models, developmental altitude, empirical evidence, integral enactment, quality standards, scientific rigor, statistics, stages, Kristian Merckoll
