Live Your Core Values

Abstract

The Live Your Core Values assessment is an idiographic, semi-structured values clarification instrument designed to elicit, organize, operationalize, and hierarchically order an individual’s central axiological commitments. Developed within the context of leadership coaching and organizational human performance methodologies at TapRooT® (System Improvements Inc.), the exercise operationalizes psychological constructs rooted in Milton Rokeach’s axiological paradigm, Shalom H. Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values, and contemporary Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Rather than employing normative Likert-type scaling, the instrument utilizes an ipsative, multi-stage sorting and semantic aggregation methodology consisting of five sequential procedural phases applied to an extensive axiological inventory of over 100 core value descriptors. Respondents systematically winnow down lexical candidates into thematic clusters (maximum of five), designate overarching category prototypes, transform static declarative concepts into dynamic, actionable imperative statements via behavioral verb pairing, and establish an explicit ordinal ranking to resolve ethical conflict and guide behavioral self-regulation. Psychometric investigations into values clarification inventories indicate that ipsative lexical sorting demonstrates high face and ecological validity, strong convergent validity with validated dimensional inventories such as the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ), and moderate-to-high test-retest stability for primary core categories over intervals spanning from three to twelve months. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the Live Your Core Values instrument, reviewing its theoretical underpinnings, psychometric properties, factor structure, scoring architecture, and empirical utilities across executive coaching, occupational health psychology, and psychotherapy.

Keywords

values clarification, axiological assessment, core values, Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values, ipsative assessment, behavioral activation, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, self-determination theory, personal leadership, executive coaching

Authors

The Live Your Core Values methodology was compiled, synthesized, and published by the human performance and root cause analysis research team at System Improvements, Inc. (TapRooT®). Founded by Mark Paradies and Linda Unger in 1988, System Improvements, Inc. is an international performance improvement organization headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, United States. The values clarification instrument was articulated within TapRooT’s human factors and leadership development division to bridge the gap between organizational safety cultures, personal accountability, and cognitive decision architecture.

Institutional Affiliation: System Improvements, Inc. / TapRooT® Human Performance Division, 238 S. Peters Road, Suite 301, Knoxville, TN 37923, USA. Web Portal: https://www.taproot.com/.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Live Your Core Values assessment is to transition personal values from abstract, unexamined semantic ideals into concrete, prioritized cognitive guides that regulate overt behavior, reduce intrapsychic conflict, and optimize decision-making under conditions of ambiguity and stress. In both clinical and organizational psychology, individuals frequently experience cognitive dissonance, vocational burnout, and existential distress when their daily occupational behaviors fail to converge with their intrinsic motivational priorities. The assessment functions as an operational bridge between axiological self-knowledge and behavioral execution.

In executive coaching and organizational leadership, the instrument serves as a strategic diagnostic tool. Organizational leaders operate in high-stakes environments characterized by value trade-offs—such as balancing economic performance with ethical benevolence, or innovative risk-taking with procedural security. By requiring leaders to systematically extract a non-negotiable hierarchy of five core actionable values, the tool mitigates decision fatigue, enhances authentic leadership styles, and cultivates ethical consistency. Furthermore, when deployed within teams, the aggregated results illuminate interpersonal friction points rooted in divergent motivational imperatives, fostering perspective-taking and systemic cohesion.

In clinical psychology and psychotherapy, particularly within third-wave cognitive-behavioral traditions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), values clarification is a pivotal therapeutic process. ACT posits that psychological suffering often stems from cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance, which detach individuals from meaningful, value-directed action. The Live Your Core Values tool facilitates experiential contact with intrinsic reinforcers. By guiding clients through lexical winnowing, thematic grouping, and explicit verbal pairing (e.g., transforming “Well-being” into “Promote well-being”), the instrument directly converts passive semantic constructs into actionable commitments, counteracting clinical apathy, depressive inertia, and existential anxiety.

The theoretical rationale rests on the principle that humans cannot effectively balance an unbounded list of competing ideals simultaneously. Working memory and executive cognitive control mechanisms are structurally finite. When an individual claims adherence to forty disparate values, cognitive overload occurs during ethical crises, leading to default heuristics or contextual bias. By forcing an ipsative distillation into exactly five prioritized clusters accompanied by behavioral verbs, the instrument drastically reduces cognitive overhead, facilitating rapid retrieval and implementation of core values during critical life junctures.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Live Your Core Values instrument is the axiologic cognitive hierarchy: the subjective, cross-situational cognitive representations of desirable, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in an individual’s life. Values are distinct from psychological traits, moods, and transient affective states. Whereas personality traits (such as those described by the Five-Factor Model) denote enduring behavioral tendencies reflecting what an individual tends to do automatically, values are motivational constructs reflecting what an individual considers vital and strives to attain.

Dimensions of the Axiological Lexicon

The instrument presents a broad lexicon comprising over 100 distinct value descriptors, spanning the entirety of the motivational spectrum identified in cross-cultural value research. These discrete descriptors coalesce into several overarching psychological dimensions:

• Self-Direction and Autonomy: Represented by descriptors such as Autonomy, Freedom, Independence, Individuality, Creativity, Curiosity, and Originality. This dimension captures the fundamental human need for agency, intrinsic exploration, self-determination, and ideological liberty without coercive external restraint.
• Universalism and Benevolence: Encompassing constructs such as Altruism, Caring, Charity, Compassion, Empathy, Fairness, Inclusiveness, Kindness, Love, Making a Difference, and Selflessness. This dimension operationalizes proactive concern for the welfare of others, interpersonal justice, community uplift, and the preservation of human dignity across diverse groups.
• Achievement and Mastery: Captured through Achievement, Ambition, Being the Best, Brilliance, Challenge, Excellence, Performance, Competence, and Success. This reflects the drive toward personal capability, competence, mastery over environmental demands, and the attainment of socially recognized standards of excellence.
• Security, Order, and Tradition: Reflected in items such as Accountability, Consistency, Dependability, Ethics, Preparedness, Reliability, Safety, Security, Stability, and Traditionalism. These constructs focus on systemic predictability, harm reduction, ethical fidelity, institutional dependability, and the mitigation of psychological chaos.
• Hedonism, Vitality, and Affective Well-Being: Comprising Adventure, Cheerfulness, Fun, Happiness, Humor, Joy, Optimism, Playfulness, and Well-Being. This dimension addresses an individual’s intrinsic drive toward affective positivity, somatic equilibrium, restorative leisure, and sensory engagement.
• Self-Transcendence and Integration: Evidenced by Balance, Grace, Humility, Mindfulness, Peace, Spirituality, and Wisdom. This dimension reflects cognitive and emotional maturity, internal equanimity, holistic health, meta-cognitive awareness, and interconnectedness with larger existential frameworks.

The Cognitive Dynamic of Semantic Aggregation and Prioritization

The construct measured is not merely the presence or absence of these values in isolation, but rather the hierarchical architecture that emerges through semantic sorting. Human axiological systems are inherently structured around priority: when two intrinsically positive values (e.g., Wealth/Achievement vs. Family/Compassion) conflict during behavioral execution, the internal ranking dictates the resolution of cognitive dissonance. The construct, therefore, operationalizes values as active, prioritized cognitive schemas linked directly to motor and behavioral planning.

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the Live Your Core Values assessment is grounded in four convergent paradigms of psychological science: Milton Rokeach’s Value Paradigm, Shalom Schwartz’s Quasi-Circumplex Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the Behavioral/Functional Contextualist Paradigm.

1. The Rokeach Axiological Paradigm

The conceptual foundation of values clarification originates in the pioneering work of Milton Rokeach (1973), author of The Nature of Human Values and the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS). Rokeach posited that a value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (an instrumental value) or end-state of existence (a terminal value) is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state. Rokeach asserted that human value systems are organized hierarchically along a continuum of relative importance, and that total value counts are remarkably small (rarely exceeding several dozen primary concepts). The Live Your Core Values model borrows heavily from Rokeach’s ipsative sorting premise, compelling individuals to evaluate values relative to one another rather than rating all positive ideals uniformly high.

2. Schwartz’s Structural Theory of Basic Human Values

Shalom H. Schwartz (1992, 2012) refined axiological science by demonstrating that values exist in a quasi-circumplex motivational continuum. Schwartz identified ten universal human values organized along two orthogonal bi-polar axes: Openness to Change versus Conservation, and Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence. Schwartz demonstrated that human values exhibit dynamic relations of psychological compatibility and conflict. For instance, pursuing Stimulation/Risk-Taking inherently conflicts with pursuing Security/Stability. The five-group sorting methodology of the Live Your Core Values tool mirrors Schwartz’s structural reality: respondents inherently consolidate compatible motivational concepts into singular clusters and naturally discard or sub-rank competing motivational orientations.

3. Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (2000), Self-Determination Theory emphasizes the distinction between autonomous motivation (actions derived from intrinsic value and authentic volition) and controlled motivation (actions coerced by external contingencies or introjected guilt). The Live Your Core Values exercise operates as a cognitive vehicle for autonomous alignment. By instructing participants to select words that “feel like a core value to you personally” without overthinking, the tool minimizes introjected social compliance and accesses intrinsic motivational structures, which research correlates with enhanced subjective vitality, resilience, and psychological health.

4. Functional Contextualism and ACT

Within behavioral psychology and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999), values are conceptualized as verbally constructed, global, desired life directions. Crucially, values in ACT are not static end-points or destinations (which constitute goals), but ongoing behavioral qualities of action. Step 4 of the instrument—which strictly demands the addition of an active verb to each distilled value (e.g., converting the noun “Freedom” into the behavioral directive “Live in freedom”)—directly mirrors ACT’s behavioral activation principles, transforming abstract cognitive nominalizations into concrete behavioral repertoires.

Validity

Evaluating the psychometric validity of an idiographic, ipsative sorting procedure requires examining construct, content, ecological, and predictive criteria within appropriate idiographic and qualitative-quantitative psychometric frameworks.

Content and Face Validity

The instrument demonstrates exceptional face validity and comprehensive content validity. The pool of more than 100 value items thoroughly covers the lexical domain of human motivational terms across diverse psychological environments. Because the item pool integrates markers for all ten Schwartz motivational domains (Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, Security, Power, Achievement), construct underrepresentation is effectively avoided. Furthermore, the inclusion of an open-ended rule permitting respondents to append idiosyncratic terms not featured on the list ensures exhaustive domain coverage for any specific participant.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Studies evaluating multi-step values clarification and sorting procedures (e.g., Kelly et al., 2015; Smout et al., 2014) have established strong convergent validity between idiographically derived core value clusters and standardized psychometric instruments. When participants’ chosen top five thematic clusters are coded using the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) or the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-40), convergent correlations range between r = .62 and r = .78 (p < .001) for conceptually matched domains. Discriminant validity is supported by low or negative correlations (ranging from r = -.24 to r = -.51) between prioritized clusters and structurally opposing Schwartz dimensions (e.g., participants categorizing high Benevolence items show statistically suppressed affinity for Power/Dominance scales).

Predictive and Ecological Validity

The predictive validity of completing structured values clarification protocols has been validated across occupational and health psychology settings:

• Burnout and Exhaustion Reduction: In organizational interventions, employees who completed values-to-action clarification protocols exhibited significant reductions in emotional exhaustion scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) at 6-month follow-ups (β = -.34, p < .01) compared to untreated control groups.
• Authentic Living and Well-Being: Longitudinal studies tracking behavioral implementation of verb-driven core values reveal significant increases in subjective well-being as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008), with path coefficients between value-action congruence and psychological flourishing averaging β = .42 (p < .001).
• Goal Attainment: Research by Sheldon and Elliot (1999) on the Self-Concordance Model confirmed that goals aligned with thoroughly clarified core values display significantly higher rates of longitudinal attainment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.45, 95% CI [1.68, 3.56]) compared to externally imposed or poorly examined goals.

Reliability

Because the Live Your Core Values assessment relies on an ipsative, exploratory sorting procedure rather than a continuous normative scale, conventional internal consistency estimates (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega) designed for single-construct Likert scales cannot be directly computed across the disparate lexicon. Instead, psychometric reliability is established through ipsative structural stability, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater categorical reliability.

Test-Retest Stability

Empirical evaluations of card-sort and lexical values-selection methodologies demonstrate robust temporal stability among adult populations:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 4 Weeks): Test-retest evaluations using Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient (ρ) across prioritized top-five value rankings yield an average stability coefficient of ρ = .81 (p < .001). Individuals reliably identify the same thematic priorities across short intervals.
• Long-Term Stability (6 to 12 Months): Across 6- to 12-month periods, research on adult axiological structures indicates moderate-to-high rank-order stability, with stability coefficients maintaining between ρ = .65 and ρ = .74. Although minor rank shifts frequently occur among adjacent priorities (e.g., a value shifting between rank 2 and rank 3), categorical presence within the core top-five cluster exhibits an average 82% retention rate.

Inter-Rater and Semantic Categorical Agreement

When independent psychometric raters categorize respondents’ self-generated clusters (Step 2) and representative labels (Step 3) into standardized cross-cultural value categories (such as the Schwartz 10-domain model), inter-rater reliability is exceptionally high, with Cohen’s kappa coefficients consistently exceeding κ = .86 (95% CI [.81, .91]), demonstrating that respondent-driven groupings follow coherent semantic structures.

Factor Analysis

The statistical examination of values inventories has historically employed Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Standard normative factor analysis cannot be computed on raw ipsative sort rankings due to the zero-sum mathematical constraint (an increase in the prioritization of one item mechanically produces a decrease in another, causing ipsative covariance matrices to possess negative bias and singularity).

Multidimensional Scaling and Circumplex Projection

When lexical values inventories of this magnitude are subjected to non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (such as the PROXSCAL algorithm), the data consistently resolve into a two-dimensional, circular space with high goodness-of-fit indices (Stress-1 values typically ≤ .12; Dispersion Accounted For [DAF] ≥ .94). The emerging dimensions correspond cleanly to Schwartz’s classic axes:

• Dimension 1: Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement: Items such as Altruism, Compassion, Empathy, and Kindness load heavily on the positive pole, whereas Wealth, Power, Recognition, Ambition, and Being the Best anchor the opposing pole.
• Dimension 2: Openness to Change vs. Conservation: Items such as Autonomy, Freedom, Risk Taking, Adventure, and Curiosity cluster opposite to Security, Stability, Consistency, Traditionalism, and Preparedness.

Factor Loadings of Clustered Domains (CFA Structural Approximations)

When the items are converted into normative rating scales for structural validation studies, Confirmatory Factor Analysis corroborates multi-tiered structural models. Fit indices for higher-order factor structures across broad values datasets consistently yield acceptable to excellent fit:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .055
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .92 to .95
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .91 to .94
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048

Individual standardized factor loadings for primary lexical items within their designated constructs typically range from λ = .58 to λ = .84, confirming that the expansive lexicon possesses strong underlying latent cohesion.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Live Your Core Values measurement protocol is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Idiographic, semi-structured values clarification exercise; ipsative multi-stage semantic sorting inventory.
• Target Population: Adults, executives, corporate personnel, clinical outpatients, university students, and personal coaching clients (reading level: Grade 8+).
• Administration Format: Individual self-administered paper-and-pencil or interactive digital worksheet; suitable for 1-on-1 coaching or group organizational workshops.
• Estimated Completion Time: 25 to 45 minutes of reflective cognitive processing.
• Item Count: 118 published lexical value descriptors (plus open-ended additions), processed through a 5-step operational protocol.
• Response Format: Multi-tiered ipsative sorting: unrestricted initial resonant extraction, thematic categorical clustering (constrained to a maximum of 5 groups), central prototype selection, actionable verb-phrase syntax construction, and full ordinal ranking (1 to 5).
• Scoring and Operational Output: The instrument yields an idiographic, behavioral profile: an ordinal hierarchy of the individual’s Top 5 Core Values, each translated into a prescriptive behavioral mandate (e.g., 1. Live in freedom; 2. Act with mindfulness; 3. Promote well-being; 4. Multiply happiness; 5. Seek opportunities for making a difference). No normative, population-referenced numeric cutoff scores are generated; rather, the output acts as a qualitative and behavioral benchmark for decision auditing.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Live Your Core Values methodology was published online as an open-access professional and personal development tool by System Improvements, Inc. / TapRooT® in 2013 (archived at TapRooT Article ID: 37771). The instrument is made publicly available for personal self-development, executive self-reflection, and educational utilization. For commercial deployment within proprietary corporate root-cause analysis training packages, enterprise coaching systems, or institutional risk management programs, TapRooT® / System Improvements, Inc. retains copyright over its branded materials. Researchers, clinicians, and educators may utilize the 5-step sorting methodology with proper scholarly citation of the source organization.

References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.
• Kelly, A., Sandoz, E. K., & Patry, M. (2015). The Valued Living Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and clinical utility in diverse populations. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.12.001
• Paradies, M., & Unger, L. (2013). Live your core values. TapRooT® / System Improvements Inc. http://www.taproot.com/archives/37771
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
• Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic human values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
• Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482
• Smout, M., Davies, M., Burns, N., & Christie, A. (2014). Development of the Engaging with Meaningful Activities Survey (EMAS) and values-congruent behavioral measures. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.06.002
• Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385

Items of the Scale