EPQ-5 categorization.

Introduction
The Consequentialist Scale (CS) and the Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire (ESJQ) are instruments developed to evaluate the extent of moral reasoning in relation to the two pivotal factors that appear to influence moral decision-making: the degree of harm or benefit produced by the action in question and the consistency of the action with moral norms. In other words, they assess the propensity to utilitarian versus deontological moral reasoning. In contrast, the Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ-5) conceptualizes ethical idealism and ethical relativism as meaning-independent, orthogonal dimensions. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of German versions of the three mentioned scales in a sample of native German speakers.
Methods
A convenience sample of 263 participants completed the online survey. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity through the known-groups method, retest-reliability with a subgroup of n = 102, and floor and ceiling effects. This study used the STROBE checklist.
Results
The CS and EPQ-5 showed strong psychometric properties without any noticeable weaknesses. In contrast, the ESJQ displayed significant shortcomings across all analyses, with low internal consistency and poor results in both item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results indicated that deontology, formalism, and idealism were positively correlated with age, while only idealism correlated significantly with gender, with females scoring higher on the idealism scale. A positive correlation was observed between deontology and formalism with religiosity. With regard to personality, deontology and idealism demonstrated a positive correlation with conscientiousness, whereas utilitarianism exhibited a negative correlation with conscientiousness. A positive correlation between consequentialism and openness was also identified, while a negative correlation between formalism and agreeableness was evident.
Conclusion
The German versions of the CS and EPQ-5 are reliable and valid instruments for measuring the propensity toward utilitarian and deontological approaches, as well as ethical idealism and relativism. The scales, therefore, serve as invaluable tools for research, training, and professional practice, facilitating comprehension of the aspects of conscious reflection on ethical dilemmas in practice and of responsible action. The ESJQ, however, did not perform well psychometrically in the German translation, as its internal consistency is questionable.

引言
结果论量表（Consequentialist Scale, CS）与伦理判断标准问卷（Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire, ESJQ）是专为评估与道德决策两大关键影响因素相关的道德推理程度而开发的工具：即目标行为所产生的伤害或收益强度，以及该行为与道德规范的一致性。换言之，二者用于评估个体倾向于功利主义还是义务论道德推理的程度。与此不同，伦理立场问卷（Ethical Position Questionnaire, EPQ-5）将伦理理想主义与伦理相对主义界定为与意义无涉的正交维度。本研究以德语母语者为样本，旨在评估上述三个量表的德语版的心理测量学特性。

方法
本研究采用便利抽样方案，招募263名参与者完成线上问卷调查。分析内容涵盖内部一致性检验、结构效度检验、基于已知群组法的效标关联效度检验、对102名参与者组成的子样本开展的重测信度检验，以及地板效应与天花板效应分析。本研究遵循STROBE报告清单规范。

结果
结果论量表与伦理立场问卷展现出优异的心理测量学特性，未发现显著缺陷。与之相对，伦理判断标准问卷在各项分析中均表现出明显不足：内部一致性较低，项目分析与验证性因子分析结果均欠佳。
分析结果显示，义务论、形式主义与理想主义均与年龄呈正相关；仅理想主义与性别存在显著关联，女性在理想主义量表上的得分更高。义务论与形式主义均与宗教信仰程度呈正相关。
就人格特质而言，义务论与理想主义均与尽责性呈正相关，而功利主义则与尽责性呈负相关。此外，结果论与开放性呈正相关，形式主义与宜人性则呈负相关。

结论
综上，结果论量表与伦理立场问卷的德语版均为可靠且有效的测评工具，可用于评估个体倾向于功利主义与义务论道德推理的程度，以及伦理理想主义与相对主义的水平。因此，这两个量表可为相关研究、培训与专业实践提供极具价值的工具，助力理解实践中伦理困境的有意识反思维度与负责任的行为模式。然而，伦理判断标准问卷的德语版在心理测量学表现不佳，其内部一致性存疑。