Dear Cheryl.

Yes, morality can be assessed. Note, however, that, as your question indicates, morality can be moral cognition, moral behavior, and moral emotions. I cannot see how moral behavior can be assessed through a Likert-scale. For you to assess, for example, children's moral behavior you have to make unobtrusive observations or to appeal to reputational measures of, for instance, parents, teachers, or peers. Even this procedure does not go without problems for the simple reason that, as I see it, for you to classify a child's behavior as moral or immoral, you have to take into account the reasons underlying the focal behavior. To hurt someone is an immoral behavior. This is not the case when we hurt someone without intending it. To assess children's moral cognition through a Likert.scale is possible, but it is also problematic. In addition to the problem of social desirability, when one assesses one's moral cognition though a Likert-scale, we have not, again, access to the reasons underlying children's choice on the focal scale. The same could perhaps be said of moral emotions. You say that the only thing you can do is to tell reviewers that many researchers use scales to measure moral concepts. As I see it, this procedure does not go without problem because it appeals, say, to an authority's argument, not to an argument's power.

Have you heard of the following scale, which is not a Likert-scale: The moral development scale by W. Kurtines & J. Pimm (1983). The moral development scale: A Piagetian measure of moral judgment.  Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 89-105. See also Pimm, J., Kurtines, W., & Ruffy, M. (1982). Moral development in contemporary American and Swiss children. Archives de Psychologie, 50, 225-235, and Kurtines, W. & Pimm, J. (1983): The moral development scale: Unpublished Manual. May be you can ask Kurtines or Pimm to send you a cope of such scale and manual. 

As its title shows, such scale is a Piagetian-oriented scale. It is suitable for children, and allows you to easily classify a child as oriented to moral autonomy or to moral heteronomous.  Although being a Piagetian-oriented scale, the scale is standardized, and hence, it also allows you to attribute a numeric score (from 0 to 30) having to do with child's sense of justice. In Pimm, Kurtines, and Ruffy's words, the scale allows us to see "... to what extent [the child being interviewed] gave up of his/her moral realism and acquired a sense of justice" (1982, p. 226). More importantly, the moral development scale is, say, referred to a criterion, not to a norm. Note that the majority of mental tests are referred to a norm, not to a criterion. Developmental tasks, such as Piagetian tasks are always referred to a developmental criterion, not to a norm

Others could suggests the moral-conventional task by Turiel and his colleagues. This task, however, assesses the child's distinction between morality and social convention and might not be appropriate to you.

As for moral emotions, I wonder if toy are acquainted with the literature on the so called "happy/unhappy victimizer phenomenon". In this literature there are appropriate tasks, not scales, to assess children's moral/immoral emotions. You can see my publications on RG because there you can find some published studies on the happy/unhappy victimizer.This literature shows that children around 4-5 years generally expect a transgressor to feel good and happy after committing a moral or pro-social transgression. Children around 7-8 years generally expect a victimizer to feel bad and unhappy in such situation.

I  Hope that I have got your question and that my answer to it is helpful for you

Best regards, 

Dear Cheryl.

Yes, morality can be assessed. Note, however, that, as your question indicates, morality can be moral cognition, moral behavior, and moral emotions. I cannot see how moral behavior can be assessed through a Likert-scale. For you to assess, for example, children's moral behavior you have to make unobtrusive observations or to appeal to reputational measures of, for instance, parents, teachers, or peers. Even this procedure does not go without problems for the simple reason that, as I see it, for you to classify a child's behavior as moral or immoral, you have to take into account the reasons underlying the focal behavior. To hurt someone is an immoral behavior. This is not the case when we hurt someone without intending it. To assess children's moral cognition through a Likert.scale is possible, but it is also problematic. In addition to the problem of social desirability, when one assesses one's moral cognition though a Likert-scale, we have not, again, access to the reasons underlying children's choice on the focal scale. The same could perhaps be said of moral emotions. You say that the only thing you can do is to tell reviewers that many researchers use scales to measure moral concepts. As I see it, this procedure does not go without problem because it appeals, say, to an authority's argument, not to an argument's power.

Have you heard of the following scale, which is not a Likert-scale: The moral development scale by W. Kurtines & J. Pimm (1983). The moral development scale: A Piagetian measure of moral judgment.  Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 89-105. See also Pimm, J., Kurtines, W., & Ruffy, M. (1982). Moral development in contemporary American and Swiss children. Archives de Psychologie, 50, 225-235, and Kurtines, W. & Pimm, J. (1983): The moral development scale: Unpublished Manual. May be you can ask Kurtines or Pimm to send you a cope of such scale and manual. 

As its title shows, such scale is a Piagetian-oriented scale. It is suitable for children, and allows you to easily classify a child as oriented to moral autonomy or to moral heteronomous.  Although being a Piagetian-oriented scale, the scale is standardized, and hence, it also allows you to attribute a numeric score (from 0 to 30) having to do with child's sense of justice. In Pimm, Kurtines, and Ruffy's words, the scale allows us to see "... to what extent [the child being interviewed] gave up of his/her moral realism and acquired a sense of justice" (1982, p. 226). More importantly, the moral development scale is, say, referred to a criterion, not to a norm. Note that the majority of mental tests are referred to a norm, not to a criterion. Developmental tasks, such as Piagetian tasks are always referred to a developmental criterion, not to a norm

Others could suggests the moral-conventional task by Turiel and his colleagues. This task, however, assesses the child's distinction between morality and social convention and might not be appropriate to you.

As for moral emotions, I wonder if toy are acquainted with the literature on the so called "happy/unhappy victimizer phenomenon". In this literature there are appropriate tasks, not scales, to assess children's moral/immoral emotions. You can see my publications on RG because there you can find some published studies on the happy/unhappy victimizer.This literature shows that children around 4-5 years generally expect a transgressor to feel good and happy after committing a moral or pro-social transgression. Children around 7-8 years generally expect a victimizer to feel bad and unhappy in such situation.

I  Hope that I have got your question and that my answer to it is helpful for you

Best regards, 

using Likert scale will not provide an accurate data, you may use a descriptive scale "Text only" (Highly, low, moderate, unstable,...).

But, you may use the percentage to show the number of "moral" level.

Those who are interested in the measurement of Kohlberg like assessment of moral issues should check the work of Theo DAWSON. I report it in Bond &Fox 2001.