Hold a critique next to the support the reviewers still found
When you read a critique of a stage theory, also write down what the reviewers concluded the evidence still supports, and keep both halves of the verdict in view.
Why it works
Loevinger’s own 1979 review ends with support and a stated limit: its construct validity (whether the test measures the concept it is built to measure) is substantial, but falls short of clear proof of sequentiality (that the stages come in a fixed order). The 2001 review by Manners and Durkin examined the theory and the sentence completion test for construct, predictive (whether scores forecast the outcomes they should) and discriminant (whether the test separates the concept from related measures) validity, and its abstract reports substantial empirical support for the conceptual soundness of both. Keeping both halves of each verdict in view keeps a reader from treating a critique as a dismissal, or a supportive review as a proof.
How to do it
- When you read a critique, write its main objection in one sentence, in the critic’s words where you can.
- Find the sentence where the same author says what the evidence still supports, or what it does not show.
- Write the conclusion you can now defend, one sentence that includes both halves.
- Note what new evidence would change that conclusion, in either direction.
Evidence
Manners and Durkin (2001) report in their abstract “substantial empirical support for the conceptual soundness of ego development theory and the WUSCT”; the full text could not be checked, so only the abstract is reported. Loevinger (1979) reports that construct-validity evidence is “substantial, but falls short of clear proof of sequentiality.” Both are read from abstracts. The studies concern the theory and the test, not the reading practice, which has not been tested. (mechanistic)
Both reviews are of research up to their dates. Merckoll (2023) is more recent and narrower, examining scoring of the STAGES model, and it does not test the theory directly.
Sources
- Manners, J., & Durkin, K. (2001). A Critical Review of the Validity of Ego Development Theory and Its Measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(3), 541–567. The DOI record lists the first author as John Manners Gilmore.
- Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(3), 281–311.
Common mistake
Quoting only the sentence from a critique that suits you. The support clause and the limit clause often sit side by side, and the one you skip is usually the one that changes the conclusion.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for The Critiques of Adult Development Stage Theories, Fairly Stated
- Close the reading and come back to the room
Put the stage reading down, feel your feet and breath, and let the shame loosen before you decide anything about where you stand.
- Reach a person if the shame is more than a reading can carry
If the shame about where you stand starts to feel like not wanting to be here, reach a trusted person and a clinician now.
- Check who validated a stage model before you repeat its claims
When a stage model is described as scientifically proven, find out who ran the validation, whether the report is public, and whether anyone outside its developers has checked it.
- Prefer a scored assessment to reading yourself into a stage
Do not pick the stage description that sounds most like you; if you want a level, use a scored instrument, and treat your own sense of your stage as a guess to test.
- Do not place someone at a stage from one conversation or one moment
Before you judge where a colleague, partner or child sits in a stage model, collect more than one sample and keep what you observed separate from the label you are tempted to attach.
- Check whether the people in a stage study resemble the people you are describing
Before you apply a stage description to people in another culture, class or community, find out who the original samples were and what they had in common.
- Read a gender gap against the schooling and jobs of the people measured
When a study reports that men or women score higher on a developmental measure, check whether education and occupation explain the gap before you conclude anything about sex.
- Ask whether a moral scoring scheme counts care and emotion as reasons
When a framework ranks how mature a person’s moral reasons are, check whether reasons grounded in relationships, feeling and loyalty were scored at all.
- Check whether a stage claim’s evidence came from children or from adults
Before you apply a stage claim to adult life, find out how old the people were in the studies that produced it, and whether those studies tested adults at all.
Related concepts
- Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES Model, Made Practical
Twelve stages built from three repeating questions, and how to work with the one you are in
- Ego Development Theory: What It Is and How It Is Measured
The frame you make meaning through, how researchers measure it, and how to work with it without ranking anyone
- Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, Made Practical
Six stages of moral reasoning, how they are scored, and how to work with the reasons you give
- Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, Explained
Two ways of reasoning about moral problems, what the research shows, and how to use both lenses
- The Construct-Aware and Unitive Stages of Adult Development
Seeing the self and its stories as constructions — what it looks like, how rare it is, and what it does not promise
- The Model of Hierarchical Complexity, Explained
How tasks are ranked by coordination, what the 14 orders are, and how to use the idea on a hard problem
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Plausible mechanism