Table 2.

Measures Designed to Assess Wisdom

Measure	Description	Development/Validation Sample(s)	Reliability	Validity	Wisdom Subcomponents Designed to Assess	Strengths	Limitations
Interview-Based
1. Berlin wisdom paradigm (3, 23, 33, 34, 47)	Participants respond to vignettes containing challenging life dilemmas (e.g., how to respond to a phone call from a friend who is contemplating suicide) and trained raters use Likert-type scale to evaluate response	Multiple samples (Germany) N range = 60 – 204 Age range = 14 – 81 years	Internal consistency: r = .50 – .77 among the five separate wisdom criteria Inter-rater: α = .51 – .99 Test-retest (12 month interval): correlations = .65 – .94	Convergent: Those nominated as wise also earned higher scores on life planning tasks relative to control groups Discriminant: Wisdom scores correlated with, yet distinct from, a variety of related constructs including intelligence and personality	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Acknowledgment of uncertainty Tolerance Lifespan contextualism	-Replicated demonstrations of acceptable psychometric properties across samples -Large body of empirical support	-Uncertainty regarding appropriateness of distinction among the 5 criteria and 2 categories (Brugman, 2006) -Potential over-emphasis of cognitive aspects of wisdom (Ardelt, 2004) -Weaknesses associated with interview-based measures in general
2. Personal wisdom task (57)	Participants instructed to think aloud “about yourself as a friend” and trained raters evaluate responses	N = 161 (Germany) Age range = 20 – 80 years	Inter-rater: α = .84 for mean score; α = .53 – .74 for individual criteria	Convergent: Personal wisdom correlated with several theoretically relevant variables including cognitive measures, life events, and general wisdom Discriminant: Different variables predicted personal wisdom and general wisdom	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Self-reflection Acknowledgment of uncertainty Tolerance	-See those listed above for the Berlin wisdom paradigm	-See those listed above for the Berlin wisdom paradigm
3. Reasoning about social conflicts (5)	Participants read descriptions of social conflicts and then predict how the conflict would unfold and trained raters evaluate responses	Multiple samples (US) N range = 141 – 247 Age range = 25 – 93 years	Inter-rater: Cohen’s κ = .52 – 0.98	Validation of coding scheme: Ratings of participant responses by wisdom experts and trained coders were in agreement	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Self-reflection Acknowledgment of uncertainty Acknowledgment of likelihood of change Prediction flexibility	-Naturalistic materials -Sample with a wide age range -Pre-screening of potential participants for cognitive impairment	-Limited reporting on validity -Weaknesses associated with interview-based measures in general
Questionnaires
4. Adolescent Wisdom Scale (AWS) (54)	Self-report ratings on 23 items using 5- point Likert scale rating to assess 3 subcomponents of wisdom	N = 2027 (US) Age range not reported Mean age = 18 years (participants were high school seniors)	Internal consistency:α = .92 for total scale; α = .79 – .87 for three subscales	Convergent: Wisdom score associated with less substance use and violent behavior, greater self-efficacy, and lower scores on a measure of psychopathology Construct: Principal component analysis yielded 3 subscales: (1) Harmony and Warmth, (2) Intelligence, and (3) Spirituality	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Acknowledgment of uncertainty Emotional Homeostasis Spirituality Reverence for nature	-Large sample size included in empirical studies	-Lack of validation in age groups beyond high school -Weaknesses associated with questionnaires in general
5. Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale (3D-WS) (58)	39 items with 5-point Likert scale ratings to assess 3 dimensions of wisdom	N = 180 (US) Age range = 52 – 87 years	Internal consistency: α = .71 – .85 for each of the three dimensions Test-retest (10 month interval): (subset of initial sample, N = 123) .85	Convergent: Higher 3D-WS scores in persons nominated as wise by peers and significant correlations between 3D-WS scores and wisdom ratings by the qualitative interviewer (r = .30) Discriminant: Lack of correlation with demographics (except education and occupation) and social desirability Construct: Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for all items loading on specific dimensions Content: 3D-WS scores correlated with trained rater scores of three dimensions of wisdom from qualitative interviews (r = .41 – .45) Predictive: 3D-WS scores correlated with mastery (r = .63), well-being (r = .45), purpose in life (r = .61), subjective health (r = .30), depression (r = -.59), feelings of economic pressure (r = -.23), death avoidance (r = -.33), and fear of death (r = -.56)	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Self-reflection Acknowledgment of uncertainty Emotional homeostasis	-Rigorous scale development -Demonstration of various forms of reliability and validity	-Weaknesses associated with questionnaires in general
6. Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale (SAWS) (35, 37, 59)	40-items rated on a 6-point Likert scale to assess 5 subcomponents of wisdom	Multiple samples (US) N range = 61 – 171 Age range = 17 – 92 years	Internal consistency: α= .88 – .90 for the total score Test-retest (2 week interval):.84	Convergent: Wisdom positively associated with generativity (r = .45), ego-integrity (r = .45) and other positive psychosocial values (e.g., goal seeking) Discriminant: Wisdom negatively correlated with hedonistic values and attachment avoidance Construct: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the viability of the five dimension model: (1) life experiences, (2) emotional regulation, (3) reminiscence/reflectiveness, (4) openness to experience, and (5) humor	Decision making/knowledge Self-reflection Emotional homeostasis Openness Sense of humor	-Replication of acceptable psychometric properties in multiple samples -Development to assess wisdom across the adult lifespan -Reported lack of correlation with a measure of social desirability (Taylor, Bates, & Webster, 2011)	-Possibility that ubscales (e.g., openness to experience, humor) may be considered predictors or consequences of wisdom rather than essential elements of wisdom (Ardelt, 2011) -Weaknesses associated with questionnaires in general
7. Wisdom Development Scale (WDS) (31, 32)	79-item, 7- point Likert scale, self-report questionnaire assessing 8 dimensions of wisdom	Multiple samples (US) N range = 338 – 2715 Age range not reported Mean age range = 21.1 to 34.1 years	Internal consistency: α = .96 for total score; r = .39 – .86 for the seven subscales	Convergent: WDS scores correlated with scores from related measures assessing developing autonomy (r = .56), developing purpose (r = .51), and managing emotions (r = .27) Discriminant: As hypothesized, scores were higher for professionals compared to college students Construct: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated model fit well across samples	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Self-reflection Acknowledgment of uncertainty Emotional homeostasis	-Use of multiple large samples during development and validation	-Samples did not include older adults -Survey response rates were generally low (11-40%) -Several items correlated with a measure of social desirability
8. The Wise Thinking and Acting Questionnaire (WITHAQ) (30)	13-item, 4-point Likert scale, self-report questionnaire assessing 3 cognitive facets of wisdom	Multiple samples (Greece) N range = 89 – 446 Age range = 19 – 90 years	Internal consistency: α = .74 for total score; α = .60 – .75 for the three factors	Construct: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated three interrelated factors Concurrent: WITHAQ Integrated Dialectical Thinking factor was predicted by the 3D-WS Reflective dimension Convergent: WITHAQ factors were positively associated with a measure of hope	Practical wisdom based on accumulated knowledge Dialectical thinking Awareness of life uncertainty	-Use of multiple large samples during development and validation -Broad age range -Found to have measurement invariance given items did not display differential functioning across age, gender, and education groups (with the exception of one item)	-Focused solely on cognitive dimension of wisdom -Age and education were confounded (older age was associated with lower educational level)
Hybrid Interview-Based and Questionnaire/Multi-Modal Approach
9. Practical Wisdom Scale (PWS) and Ratings of Transcendent Wisdom (TWR) (49)	Self-report adjective checklist questionnaire (PWS) and rating of response to open-ended question requiring participant to provide an example of wisdom (TWR) that is then rated by judges	N = 138 (US) Age range not reported Longitudinal design PWS items completed at mean ages 27 and 52 years for women and 31 and 56 years for men. TWR completed at mean age of 52 for women and 56 for men.	Internal consistency (PWS): α = .74 – .81 Inter-rater (TWR): α = .81 – .86	Convergent: Small-to-moderate correlations among PWS/TWR and a variety of theoretically related variables including measures of ego development (r = .22 to .30), insight (r = .22 to .44), autonomy (r = .22 to .26), and psychological mindedness (r = .24 to .26)	Decision making/knowledge Prosocial values Self-reflection Acknowledgment of uncertainty Tolerance Spirituality	-Longitudinal design of empirical studies -Multi modal assessment	-Use of a single question to assess wisdom (TWR) -Limited evidence for validity -Weaknesses associated with interview-based measures (TWR) and questionnaires (PWS) in general