Determining the Singularity and Transdisciplinarity Properties of the Theory Evaluation Scale: A Literature Review

Abstract

ABSTRACT Theories such as Social Darwinism and Culture of Poverty have negatively influenced public interest to date. Because theories play a major role in shaping public perspectives and policies, it is important to appraise their merits. Yet, the existing literature has predominantly relied on subjective means of theory evaluation. Joseph and Macgowan’s Theory Evaluation Scale (TES) provided the mechanism through which researchers can objectively evaluate the quality of theories. Through a thorough review of the literature, this paper tested two assumptions of the TES: (1) the singularity assumption and (2) the transdisciplinarity assumption. Results revealed that, besides the TES, the literature contained at least 14 other theory evaluation benchmarks emanating from 10 different disciplines: nursing, education, psychology, behavioral health, communication, information systems, sociology, business, political science, and criminal justice. Results also indicate that, despite their similarly with the TES in terms of content, these benchmarks lack psychometric properties to rise to the level of instrument. These findings therefore support both the singularity assumption and the transdisciplinarity assumption of the TES. This paper carries implications for interprofessional collaboration, a key benchmark for higher education in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, this paper has implications for psychometrics by extending the knowledge base of the TES as well as the scholarship on theory appraisal.