Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

Development

ISSN: 0748-1756 (Print) 1947-6302 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uecd20

Development of the Altruism Scale for Children:

An Assessment of Caring Behaviors Among
Children

Jacqueline M. Swank, Dodie Limberg & Ren Liu

To cite this article: Jacqueline M. Swank, Dodie Limberg & Ren Liu (2019): Development of the
Altruism Scale for Children: An Assessment of Caring Behaviors Among Children, Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, DOI: 10.1080/07481756.2019.1667245

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2019.1667245

Published online: 18 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uecd20
MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2019.1667245

ASSESSMENT, DEVELOPMENT, AND VALIDATION

Development of the Altruism Scale for Children:

An Assessment of Caring Behaviors Among Children
Jacqueline M. Swanka, Dodie Limbergb, and Ren Liua

a
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; bUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article focuses on the development of the Altruism Scale for Children Altruism; caring; children;
(ASC). Analyses revealed a one-factor model with internal consistency of instrument development;
0.89 and test-retest reliability of 0.94. The authors also discuss the implica- behavior
tions for using the instrument for assessing the need for interventions and
measuring program outcomes.

Gandhi said, “If we are to reach real peace in the world, we shall have to begin with the child-
ren.” The promotion of caring behavior among children can reduce bullying and violence
(McCarty, Teie, McCutchen, & Geller, 2016). Additionally, scholars report that children who
exhibit early prosocial behavior towards family and strangers may have fewer subsequent problem
behaviors (Padilla-Walker, Carlo, & Nielson, 2015). Caring also functions to assist individuals in
fostering a healthy self-esteem (McCarty et al., 2016). Robinson and Curry (2005) describe altru-
ism as “the purest form of caring — selfless and non-contingent upon reward” (p. 68). For the
purpose of this study, altruism is defined as “behavior motivated by concern for others or by
internalized values, goals, and self-rewards rather than by the expectation of concrete or social
rewards, or the desire to avoid punishment or sanctions” (Eisenberg et al., 1999, p. 1360).
Children spend a significant amount of time in school and this environment serves as an influ-
ential factor in fostering behavior patterns among children. Creating and modeling an altruistic
environment is the ethical responsibility of all stakeholders (i.e., teachers, school counselors,
administrators) within the school environment. The Association for American Educators (AAE)
(AAE, 2017) reports that teachers and administrators are responsible for modeling and fostering
positive aspects of student character development (e.g., caring and doing for others).
Additionally, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA, 2012) states that ethical school
counselors have a personal and professional responsibility to develop a comprehensive school
counseling program that promotes a caring and respectful school environment. Therefore, it is
the ethical duty of counselors and educators to contribute to and develop an altruistic environ-
ment for children to learn, socialize, and grow.
Creating altruistic environments within a school directly relates to students’ acceptance and
self-esteem, leading them to feel positive emotions and affirmed, instead of rejected, with less
need to feel good by putting others down (McCarty et al., 2016; Miller, 2005). Weller and
Lagattuta (2013) found that children (N ¼ 76) associated more positive feelings with acting unself-
ishly to help others, instead of satisfying one’s own needs. Therefore, creating comprehensive pro-
grams within a school that develop and foster altruistic behaviors supports the development of

CONTACT Jacqueline M. Swank jswank@coe.ufl.edu School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in
Education, College of Education, University of Florida, 1215 Norman Hall, PO Box 117046, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Ren Liu was at the University of Florida when this article was submitted and is now at the University of California, Merced.
ß 2019 Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling (AARC)
2 J. M. SWANK ET AL.

caring students and positive learning communities. Furthermore, assessments are needed to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of programs designed to foster caring behaviors among children.
The Child Altruism Inventory (CAI, Ma & Leung, 1991) is the only known instrument that
focuses on measuring altruism in children. The CAI consists of 24 yes or no items designed to
measure children’s feelings toward altruism, not the actual behavior. Additionally, the CAI meas-
ures altruism in children in second through sixth grade. Thus, a need exists for the development
of an instrument to measure altruistic behavior across all grade levels. Therefore, the current
study focuses on the development of the Altruism Scale for Children (ASC), an instrument
designed to measure altruistic behavior across third through twelfth grade. The development of a
psychometrically sound instrument will equip professionals with a tool to measure children’s
existing levels of altruism, as well as measure the outcomes from interventions designed to pro-
mote altruistic behaviors.

Development of Altruism in Children

The most common ways children exemplify altruistic behavior is by their actions toward others
they know, strangers, animals, and community service. Scholars propose that kindness and
empathy toward animals may relate to behaviors shown toward humans (Arbour, Signal, & Taylor,
2009). Furthermore, when children participated in altruistic acts to benefit the larger community
(e.g., volunteering, service-learning) they had improved health outcomes and increased well-being
(Piliavin, 2009). Identifying how altruism develops in children is beneficial in order to provide
them opportunities to foster their altruistic qualities. Robinson and Curry (2007) developed the
Altruism Development Model (ADM; Robinson & Curry, 2007) to identify how altruism develops.
The ADM includes four contributing factors: (a) biological (Eisenberg et al., 1999), (b) cognitive
(McGuire, 2003); (c) social learning (Bandura, 1977); and (d) religion/spirituality (Robinson &
Curry, 2007). Researchers have examined aspects of this model related to how altruism is mani-
fested and perceived by adults, such as counseling students (Swank, Ohrt, & Robinson, 2013;
Swank, Robinson, & Ohrt, 2012). Children spend a significant amount of time in schools and this
environment can be influential in the development of altruistic behavior. The two factors of the
ADM that are most prevalent within a school environment are cognitive and social learning.

Cognitive Theory of the Development of Altruism

Eisenberg, Miller, Shell, McNalley, and Shea (1991) suggested that altruism is cognitively learned
as children develop their ability to take on others’ perspectives. As a result, children develop
empathy. Additionally, as children mature, their cognitive understanding of altruism develops
(Robinson & Curry, 2005). In examining sharing behavior among young children, Wu and Su
(2014) found that sharing behavior was positively correlated with understanding of theory of
mind. Considering that cognitive development is a major focus within an academic environment,
the school provides a crucial opportunity for children to learn and develop their altruistic qualities.

Social Learning of the Development of Altruism

Social learning theory suggests that altruistic behavior is learned through social interactions and
modeling (Bandura, 1977; Konecni & Ebbesen, 1975). Researchers found that parental role model-
ing and conversations about giving and volunteering were related to adolescents giving and volun-
teering (Ottoni-Wilhelm, Estell, & Perdue, 2014). Additionally, scholars found a positive
relationship between teachers’ socially supported behavior and students’ intended helping behavior
in a physical education class (Kokkonen, Kokkonen, Telama, & Liukkonen, 2013). Robinson and
Curry (2005) suggested four ways to create an altruistic climate within schools: (a) define and
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 3

increase awareness of altruism as a norm in the school; (b) increase empathy within the school; (c)
assist children and other stakeholders in the school environment in developing personal values
about caring and helping; and (d) provide opportunities in the classroom to demonstrate and
model self-perceived efficacy for helping others. Thus, school counselors, teachers, and other
school personnel have the opportunity to role model caring behaviors (Limberg, 2017); and there-
fore, are instrumental in helping facilitate the development of these behaviors among children.

Development of the Altruism Scale for Children

We created the ASC using recommended steps to develop a scale (DeVellis, 2016; Dimitrov, 2012):
(1) item creation, (2) expert review of items, (3) administer to pilot sample, (4) include validation
procedure, (5) evaluate items, and (6) develop final scale. First, we constructed the items after an
extensive review of the literature. As described earlier, the literature regarding the development of
altruism in children, specifically within the school environment, focuses on cognitive and social
learning theories. Therefore, we developed items based on how children develop cognitively and
how they behave socially toward others. Items included children’s behavior toward: (a) people who
are known to the child, (b) strangers, (c) pets, and (d) the larger community.
Following development of the items for the ASC, experts reviewed the items for content and
appropriateness for children and adolescents. Experts included researchers who had expertise in
altruism and caring behaviors, researchers with experience related to instrument development,
and teachers and other professionals with experience working and interacting with children in
the various age groups. The items for the ASC were also piloted with a group of children in the
corresponding grade levels to ensure that the language was appropriate and understandable for
the children within each group. Finally, we included the CAI as part of the validation procedure.
Although the CAI exists for scholars and other professionals to use in measuring altruism, it
focuses on feelings related to altruism, and was only designed for use with children in grades 2nd
through 6th. Therefore, we sought to develop an instrument to measure altruistic behavior across
childhood in order for it to be more objectively measured. Our investigation was guided by the
following research questions:

- What is the factor structure of the ASC?

- What is the evidence of reliability for the ASC?
- What is the evidence of validity for the ASC?

Method
Participants
There were a total of 576 children who participated in our study. There were 11 participating
schools including seven schools in the United States and 4 international schools. The schools in
the United States included two public schools (one elementary [k-5] and the other one included
elementary and secondary grades [k-12]), four private schools (one elementary [k-6], two elemen-
tary [pk-8] and one secondary [6-12]), and one charter school (k-6). The international schools
included three Irish primary schools and one school in South Korea that encompassed grades k-
12. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 19 years, with a mean of 11.52 years (SD ¼ 2.58).
Regarding grade level, our sample included 68 (12%) third graders, 70 (12%) fourth graders, 136
(24%) fifth graders, 79 (14%) sixth graders, 20 (3.5%) seventh graders, 13 (2.3%) eighth graders, 1
(0.2%) ninth grader, 11 (1.9%) 10th graders, 32 (5.6%) 11th graders, 66 (11%) 12th graders, and 80
(14%) who did not report their grade level. Of those reporting gender, 355 (62%) boys and 217
(35%) girls participated, with 4 (0.7%) reporting no gender. Of the 146 (25%) participants
4 J. M. SWANK ET AL.

reporting race/ethnicity, 79 reported being Caucasian, 12 Asian, 21 Hispanic, 8 Mixed Racial, 24

African-American, and 2 Alaskan.

Procedure
Following approval from the institutional review board (IRB), we obtained school board approval
from each school district for the participating public schools. We also obtained approval from the
principal/director/head master from each school, after making contact with the school counselors
and gaining their support for the project. Next, we sought approval from parents/guardians. We
sent home with students consent forms with an attached letter briefly describing the purpose of
our study. Some schools also discussed the study and distributed consent forms at school-wide
events. Finally, after receiving parent/guardian approval, we obtained verbal and written assent
from the children. An outside researcher, who received permission to use the instrument for his
study, collected data from the three Irish primary schools. He sent the data to us to be included
in our analysis.
In addition to administering the ASC, the participants in 3rd through 5th grade were also asked
to take the CAI (administered at the same time) to assess the external structure. We were not
able to administer the CAI to the 6th grade students. Additionally, the CAI was not administered
to the participants in 7th through 12th grade because the CAI was only normed for children in
2nd through 6th grade. The participants completed the ASC within their school setting. We
administered the assessments to participants either individually or in groups, depending on logis-
tical issues at the individual schools. Because instruction at all schools was delivered in English,
including the school in South Korea, we administered the assessments in English. We gave the
children the option to have the items read to them or to read them independently. We adminis-
tered the assessments except at the Irish schools and one other school. In the final school, the
school counselor administered the assessment due to time constraints at the school. Additionally,
we gave the assessment to a small group of children (n ¼ 17) at one school (k-12 school) a second
time following a one-week waiting period to measure test-retest reliability. This was not feasible
at the other participating schools due to time constraints.

Instruments
Altruism Scale for Children
The ASC is a self-report, unidimensional instrument that is designed to measure altruistic behavior
among children and adolescents in 3rd through 12th grade. Considering the need for social/emo-
tional development of children (ASCA, 2012), we developed the ASC for counselors and educators
in order for them to have a depiction of children’s general altruistic behavior or to use within inter-
ventions focused on fostering and developing altruism. It has 30 items that offer three options for
children to select from in answering the items. One response reflects an altruistic response (scored
with three points), one response focuses on a self-centered response (scored with one point), and
the third option ranges in the middle (scored with two points) relating to a reliance on feedback
from others in the decision-making process. For example, one item reads as follows: “A teacher is
walking into the building and drops some things as she attempts to open the door. I: (a) ask my
friends if we should offer help, (b) stop and offer to help, or (c) keep walking by.”

Child Altruism Inventory

The CAI contains 24 items for children to answer using either a yes or no response. A scoring
guide is used to score the instrument. The original version of the CAI had 45 items; however, it
was reduced to 24 items following analysis of data from a pilot study. Then, Ma and Leung
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 5

(1991) assessed the psychometrics of the 24-item instrument with 1,095 Chinese children in
second through sixth grades in Hong Kong. The internal consistency for the entire sample was
.77, and the test-retest reliability was .70 for a sample of 5th graders. For validity, the authors
demonstrated strong theory behind the instrument using the empathetic and normative
approaches to conceptualize altruism, which supports the content validity of the scale.
Furthermore, Ma and Leung assessed the convergent validity of the data resulting from the CAI
through an analysis of correlations between the CAI and five additional rating scales (Standard
Progressive Matrices, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, Junior Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire, Classroom Environment Scale, and Adolescent Behavior Questionnaire). The
results revealed that altruism was positively correlated (ranging from 0.17 to 0.48) with other
attributes, including intelligence, self-esteem, extroversion, and prosocial acts.

Data Analysis
We used Mplus 7.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015) and R version 3.2 (R Core Team, 2017) to analyze
the data. We examined the descriptive statistics of the dataset first. Item responses formed a com-
plete matrix with no missingness, and all values were within the expected range. To support the
validity of the use of the ASC, we gathered the following five sources of evidence identified in
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research
Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on
Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014): (1) content-based evidence, (2) response process evi-
dence, (3) internal structure evidence, (4) external structure evidence, and (5) evidence of appro-
priate consequences.
For content-based evidence, we reviewed the literature, developed items based on existing the-
ories, and employed an expert-panel to review the items, as we discussed in the instrument devel-
opment section. Regarding response process evidence, we conducted a think-aloud group to make
sure that the processes used by children to respond to the ASC items aligned with the intended
processes for responding to those items. For internal structure evidence, we explored the dimen-
sionality of the scale through factor analysis techniques. We divided the dataset into two random
halves (288 cases in each half). Then, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the
first half and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the second half of the data for cross-val-
idation. In both EFA and CFA, we used the weighted least squares means and variance adjusted
(WLSMV) method for estimating parameters. We also examined the internal consistency and
test-retest reliability. For external structure evidence, we explored whether the relationship
between ASC items and CAI items reflected the hypothesized relationships implied by theory
(Kane, 2013). Finally, for evidence of appropriate consequences, we discussed the social conse-
quences of using the ASC to promote caring behaviors among children. In the results section, we
present the internal and external structure evidence. Then, in the discussion section, we discuss
the social consequences of using the ASC.

Results
In conducting the EFA with the first half of the sample (N ¼ 288), we analyzed 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-
factor solutions using an oblimin rotation. For the 1-factor solution, most item loadings were
around .6 and .7. For the 2-factor solution, only two items significantly loaded on a second factor
at a ¼ .05. Additionally, for 3- and 4- factors solutions, most loadings became statistically insig-
nificant. We also reviewed the scree plot to determine the number of factors to extract (see
Figure 1). Four criteria that scholars commonly use provided different information regarding the
number of factors to extract: using (a) the “eigenvalues larger than one” rule (Wold, Esbensen, &
Geladi, 1987) extract nine factors, (b) parallel analysis (DeVellis, 2016) three factors, (c) optimal
6 J. M. SWANK ET AL.

Figure 1. Scree plot for the exploratory factor analysis results.

coordinates (Raiche, 2010) three factors, and (d) acceleration factor rule (Raiche, 2010) one factor.
However, a review of both the factor loadings and scree plot revealed that a one-factor solution
was the best representation of the data.
For the CFA with the second half of the sample (N ¼ 288), we used orthogonal rotation and
evaluated the model fit using the chi-square test (v2), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). In our dataset, all
indices indicated good fit for the 1-factor (i.e. unidimensional) model: v2 (df ¼ 405, N ¼ 288) ¼
790.63, p ¼ 0.00; RMSEA ¼ .05, 90% CI ¼ [.05, .06]; CFI ¼ .91; TLI ¼ .90. Kenny (2011)
reported that RMSEA  .05 indicates a good fit. Additionally, Hu and Bentler (1999) stated that
CFI and TLI values > .90 indicate good fit. Table 1 presents the factor loadings and the standard
errors for the CFA results. All factor loadings, ranging from 0.32 to 0.79, were statistically signifi-
cant at a ¼ .01.
We also examined internal structure evidence by assessing two types of reliability: internal
consistency and test-retest. Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha for the 30 items was
0.89. Additionally, test-retest reliability was 0.94. Finally, in regard to external structure evidence,
we examined convergent validity by calculating the correlation between the ASC and the CAI
and found a correlation of 0.63. This value is higher than the correlations between the CAI and
other similar rating scales as discussed in a previous section, showing strong evidence of conver-
gent validity of the scores between the ASC and the CAI.

Discussion
The one-factor model fit well to the item responses and each item loaded well onto the general
factor of altruistic behavior. Additionally, the internal consistency and test-retest correlations
were high, yielding evidence of strong reliability. Therefore, the results supported the internal
structure of the ASC. However, there were only 17 participants who took the retest; and there-
fore, readers should interpret the test-retest reliability coefficient with caution. Furthermore, the
correlation between the ASC and the CAI demonstrated convergent validity; thus, providing
external structure validity evidence for the ASC.
Researchers emphasize the role of caring behaviors in reducing bullying behavior (McCarty
et al., 2016) and fostering self-esteem (McCarty et al., 2016; Miller, 2005), which may contribute
to school success. However, we found only one previous instrument (CAI) that focused on meas-
uring the construct of altruism among children, and it addressed orientation to altruism, not
altruistic behaviors. Therefore, the present study contributes to the existing literature by providing
initial support for an instrument that measures altruistic behaviors among children and
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 7

Table 1. Factor Loadings and Standard Errors for the ASC Within a One-Factor Model for Half of the Sample.
Item Factor Loading SE
1. A family member asks me for help 0.520 0.070
2. I see a dog that matches the description of a missing dog I saw on a flyer 0.507 0.059
3. A student is sitting alone in the lunchroom 0.511 0.063
4. The teacher drops her sweater while walking down the hallway 0.645 0.045
5. I see my neighbor fall in the yard 0.734 0.083
6. … The cafeteria aide announces that there is one left of the item I want to eat. I hear the 0.532 0.074
person behind me mumble that they also want that item
7. A teacher spills coffee on the desk … 0.702 0.038
8. I put … money in the snack machine for one snack and it gives me two 0.667 0.048
9. I am walking through the kitchen and notice the trash can is full 0.786 0.042
10. It is hot … and the neighbor’s dog is panting next to an empty water dish 0.553 0.053
11. A classmate forgets lunch 0.626 0.061
12. … I notice the older neighbors are having difficulty raking the leaves … 0.318 0.070
13. Your idea of a rewarding spring break would be: 0.639 0.047
14. A student looks lost 0.622 0.046
15. I see trash on the floor while walking through the library 0.620 0.051
16. I see my neighbor’s paper laying on the sidewalk outside of the fence … 0.743 0.036
17. A family member falls and breaks a leg and is now unable to walk the dog. I live close 0.561 0.056
to the family member
18. I see trash on the sidewalks in my neighborhood 0.556 0.067
19. A student next to me tells another student it is cold in the room 0.732 0.039
20. A family member comes home with the car full of groceries 0.542 0.049
21. A teacher … drops some things as she attempts to open the door 0.521 0.063
22. I hear a cat … and see that it is caught in a gate 0.532 0.065
23. A neighbor is having difficulty getting the trash can to the street 0.560 0.056
24. At the store with my family, I put enough money in the snack machine for one snack 0.697 0.044
and it gives me two
25. A peer drops her backpack and things fall out as she is walking to the bus 0.591 0.050
26. I see a shirt that has fallen on the floor when shopping at a store 0.643 0.064
27. My neighbors have a difficult time walking and this makes it difficult for them to walk 0.592 0.050
their dog
28. I am saving money to buy something for myself. There is a fundraiser at school to collect 0.660 0.050
money to support a project to benefit the community
29. The class is taking a school field trip. There are no empty seats left and no one wants to 0.600 0.051
share a seat with a student that doesn’t have a seat
30. I see a turtle close to the street 0.641 0.045
Note. Half of the sample (N ¼ 288). All factor loadings are statistically significant at a ¼ .01.

adolescents. Additionally, the CAI was normed for children in second through sixth grades and
the present study expands upon this by providing a promising instrument for professionals to use
with children in third through twelfth grades. Regarding consequential validity, the ASC may
help motivate children to engage in caring behaviors; however, it may also lead to children feeling
pressured to engage in these behaviors.

Limitations
There are a variety of limitations present among this study. In regards to sampling, the partici-
pants from the United States all resided within one state in the southeast. Additionally, the race/
ethnicity of the majority of the participants (75%) was not reported; and therefore, it is not pos-
sible to determine if there was a diverse representation regarding race/ethnicity. It is unclear why
only 25% of the participants reported race/ethnicity. One possible explanation for the elementary
school children, who did not respond to this questions, is that they might not have understood
how to answer the question. Nevertheless, the degree of coverage error regarding geographic loca-
tions and race/ethnicity limits the generalizability of the findings. The ASC is also a self-reporting
instrument and social desirability may influence responses, particularly when children want to be
viewed positively by others. Furthermore, we were able to obtain test-retest data from only 17
participants; therefore, readers should interpret the test-retest reliability coefficient with caution.
8 J. M. SWANK ET AL.

Recommendations for Future Research

There are several recommendations for future research. Specifically, researchers may focus on
addressing the sampling limitations by including children and adolescents from different geo-
graphical regions of the United States, as well as additional participants from various countries.
Additionally, researchers may obtain more complete information about the race/ethnicity of par-
ticipants. Future research may also focus on using the instrument to examine the relationship
between altruistic behaviors and other constructs (i.e., empathy). Furthermore, researchers may
use the instrument to determine the prevalence of perceived altruistic behavior among children,
including the level of perceived altruism among children in the United States compared with chil-
dren in other countries. Researchers and practitioners may use the ASC for outcome research or
program evaluation to measure the effectiveness of interventions focused on fostering altruistic
behaviors among children and adolescents. Furthermore, future research may focus on comparing
the ASC scores to parents/guardians’ and/or teachers’ perceptions of children’s level of altruis-
tic behavior.
Researchers may continue to explore strategies for assessing altruistic behaviors among young
children. Initially, we attempted to measure altruistic behaviors among children in kindergarten
through second grade; using a simplified, developmentally appropriate version of the ASC that
involved a dichotomous response format and reading the items to the children. However, during
observation of the children during the data collection process and through an initial review of the
data, it appeared that many young children responded according to how they thought we wanted
them to respond. Therefore, the researchers did not analyze the data for young children (grades
K-2). Previous research measuring altruism among young children has relied on the use of
experiments and observations (i.e., Malti et al., 2016). Although we sought to expand upon this
research by developing a self-report instrument for young children, we found that this was not
feasible in this study due to social desirability. Therefore, further research is needed in this area.

Implications for Counseling

Counselors working with children and adolescents may implement a variety of interventions
focused on promoting caring behavior and decreasing violence. The ASC provides a mechanism
for counselors to measure the prevalence of altruistic behaviors, as self-perceived by children and
adolescents. Counselors may use the instrument to assess children’s current perceived level of car-
ing behavior, and use this data for determining the need for interventions. Additionally, the data
can provide a baseline, serving as pretest data before providing an intervention. In administering
the ASC, professionals may want to remove the title of the instrument so participants do not
know that the instrument is measuring altruism, which may bias their responses.
When implementing interventions, counselors may involve children scoring high in altruistic
behaviors to help facilitate interventions. This may include recruiting these children as peer
mediators and empowering them to take a leadership role in program implementation. The
ASC may also assist with accountability by providing data to various stakeholders (i.e., parents,
agency or school administrators) when used as an outcome measure to assess the effectiveness
of interventions.
In conclusion, this study provided an examination of the ASC, an instrument developed to
measure the perceived level of altruistic behaviors among children and adolescents. The results
provide support for using the ASC to measure perceived altruistic behaviors among children.
The advancement of assessment in this area provides a mechanism for researchers to expand
upon knowledge in the development and practice of altruism among children. Practitioners are
also equipped with an instrument to assess the need for interventions and evaluate pro-
gram outcomes.
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 9

Funding
This research was supported in part by the Heintzelman Endowment at the University of Central Florida.

Notes on Contributors
Jacqueline M. Swank is in the School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education at the
University of Florida.

Dodie Limberg is in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of South Carolina.

Ren Liu was in the School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education at the University of
Florida when this article was submitted, and is now at the University of California, Merced.

References
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National
Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association (AERA).
American School Counselor Association (ASCA). (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school coun-
seling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association (ASCA).
Arbour, S., Signal, T., & Taylor, N. (2009). Teaching kindness: The promise of humane education. Society and
Animals, 17, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853009X418073
Association for American Educators (AAE). (2017). Code of ethics for educators. Mission Viejo, CA: Association
for American Educators (AAE).
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields.
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and
development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8624.00100
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., McNalley, S., & Shea, C. (1991). Prosocial development in adolescence: A
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 27, 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.849
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional cri-
teria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement,
50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
Kenny, D. A. (2011). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm.
Kokkonen, J. A., Kokkonen, M. T., Telama, R. K., & Liukkonen, J. O. (2013). Teachers’ behavior and pupils’
achievement motivation as determinants of intended helping behavior in physical education. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 57(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.628692
Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1975). Effects of the presence of children on adults’ helping behavior and compli-
ance: Two field studies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.
9923338
Limberg, D. (2017). The contribution of practicing school counselors’ level of altruism to their degree of burnout.
Professional School Counseling, 20, 127–138.
Ma, H. K., & Leung, M. C. (1991). Altruistic orientation in children: Construction and validation of the child altru-
ism inventory. International Journal of Psychology, 26(6), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599108247163
Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Ongley, S., Chaparro, M., Nola, M., & Bae, N. Y. (2016). Who is worthy of my gener-
osity?” Recipient characteristics and the development of children’s sharing. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 40(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414567007
McCarty, S., Teie, S., McCutchen, J., & Geller, E. S. (2016). Actively caring to prevent bullying in an elementary
school: Prompting and rewarding prosocial behavior. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community,
44(3), 164–176. http://dx.doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1166809
McGuire, A. M. (2003). It was nothing”-Extending evolutionary models of altruism by two social cognitive biases
in judgments of the costs and benefits of helping. Social Cognition, 21(5), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1521/
soco.21.5.363.28685
10 J. M. SWANK ET AL.

Miller, S. (2005). Building a peaceful and just world-beginning with the children. Childhood Education, 82(1),
14–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2005.10521334
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., Estell, D. B., & Perdue, N. H. (2014). Role-modeling and conversations giving in the socializa-
tion of adolescent charitable giving and volunteering. Journal of Adolescence, 37(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.010
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carlo, G., & Nielson, M. G. (2015). Does helping keep teens protected? Longitudinal bidirec-
tional relations between prosocial behavior and problem behavior. Child Development, 86(6), 1759–1772.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12411
Piliavin, J. A. (2009). Altruism and helping: The evolution of a field: The 2008 Cooley-Mead Presentation. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 72, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200305
R Core Team (2017). R (Version 3.4) [Computer Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Raiche, G. (2010). nFactors: An R package for parallel analysis and nongraphical solutions to the Cattell scree test.
R package version 2.3.3.
Robinson, E. H., & Curry, J. (2007). Altruism at Broadmead: Reflections from the past on the manifestation and
development of unselfish caring. Thresholds, 17–19.
Robinson, E. H., & Curry, J. R. (2005). Promoting altruism in the classroom. Childhood Education, 82(2), 68–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2006.10521349
Swank, J. M., Ohrt, J. H., & Robinson, E. H. (2013). A qualitative exploration of counseling students’ perception of
altruism. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 52(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2013.00030.x
Swank, J. M., Robinson, E. H., & Ohrt, J. H. (2012). Manifestation of altruism: Perceptions among counselling stu-
dents in the United Kingdom. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12(1), 63–70.
Weller, D., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2013). Helping the in-group feels better: Children’s judgment and emotional attri-
butions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Development, 84(1), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2012.01837.x
Wold, S., Esbensen, K., & Geladi, P. (1987). Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory
Systems, 2(1-3), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(87)80084-9
Wu, Z., & Su, Y., (2014). How do preschoolers’ sharing behaviors relate to their theory of mind understanding?
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1201. 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.007