A Repository of Schwartz Value Scales with Instructions and an Introduction

Abstract

This repository of value instruments includes the numerous authorized language versions of each of the four instruments developed by Schwartz to measure the basic values in his theory: The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ40), the PVQ21 (aka the Human Values Scale of the European Social Survey [ESS21]), and the revised PVQ-RR. For each instrument, the repository includes instructions for coding and analysis and the most important references relevant to it. A short introductory essay briefly outlines the key assumptions underlying the theory and instruments, the principles that organize the values into a circle, and the translation protocol. The essay includes a table that compares the four instruments on 12 characteristics relevant for choosing the one most appropriate for use in a particular study..
A Repository of Schwartz Value Instruments
Introduction
This essay introduces the four instruments I have developed to measure the basic values in my theory: The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ40), the PVQ21 (aka the Human Values Scale of the European Social Survey [ESS21]), and the revised PVQ-RR. The repository of value instruments accompanying this essay contains numerous language versions of each of these instruments.
For in depth presentations of the basic theory of values and of literature based on it, I recommend the following publications: Schwartz (1992), Schwartz et al. (2012), Schwartz (2016), and Sagiv and Schwartz (2022). The most important references for each instrument are listed in the instructions for coding and analyses for that instrument in the repository. This essay provides an overview of the assumptions on which the theory is based, a listing of the different values measured by the instruments, and a comparison of the instruments on a variety of criteria.
The theory of basic values proposes three key assumptions:
(1) Values are cognitive representations of the motives (that is, goals) necessary to cope with three universal requirements for human survival: (a) biological needs of the organism, (b) interactive needs for interpersonal coordination, and (c) group needs for welfare and survival. Each of the specific values is derived from one or more of these three requirements. Because these requirements are universal, the values derived from them are likely to be recognized across cultures.
(2) Values form a coherent structure based on the degree of compatibility or conflict between the goals the values express. This implies that values form a circular structure in which the more compatible any two values are, the closer they are going around the circle, and the more in conflict, the more distant. Compatible values guide similar perceptions, preferences, and behaviors, so one can pursue their goals successfully in the same action. Conflicting values guide opposing perceptions, preferences, and behaviors, so pursuing one precludes or inhibits pursuing the other. Table 1 presents the values and the goals they express. Figure 1 presents their circular structure.
(3) The circle of values is a continuum in which values blend into one another rather than forming discrete entities. This implies that one can partition the value circle arbitrarily into as many or as few value categories as is useful. The original theory partitioned the continuum into the ten values shown in the center of Figure 1. It grouped these values into two pairs of higher order values to form two dimensions. The openness to change vs. conservation dimension captures the conflict between independent thought, action, and feelings, challenge and change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism values) and self-restriction, preserving the past, order, and resistance to change (conformity, tradition, and security values). The self-enhancement versus self-transcendence dimension captures the conflict between concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism and benevolence values) and concern for one's own interests, relative success, and dominance over others (power and achievement values).
Table 1 about here
Subsequent research revealed that people reliably discriminate some 19 values in the value circle. The refined value theory therefore partitions the circle into 19 values. The 19 values can be used when more fine-tuned analyses are desired. Table 1 presents 19 values and the goals they express and shows their relations to the 10 values and 4 higher order values.
Two principles structure the order of the values around the circle in addition to their conflict and compatibility. (a) Values that focus on personal outcomes (e.g., stimulation; see Figure 1) contrast with values that focus on social outcomes (e.g., tradition). (b) Values that express self-expansive, growth motivations (e.g., self-direction) contrast with values that express self-protective motivations (e.g. security).
The circular structure of values has a key consequence: The whole circle of values relates to other variables (behaviors, attitudes, personality traits, or demographics) in a systematic manner. Relations of values with another variable (e.g., religiosity) usually decrease monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively related value (tradition) to the least positively or most negatively related value (hedonism). Deviations from this pattern suggest that from multiple, different types of motivation influence the behavior or attitude.
The past 30 years have seen the development of some 13 instruments to measure the 10 or 19 basic values of the Schwartz theory among children, adolescents and adults. Here, I discuss three characteristics of the four instruments I developed whose language version are available in the repository.
Translation. The same translation-backtranslation procedure was applied for translating the SVS, PVQ40, and PVQ-RR. Those interested in preparing a translation received an original English version of the instrument, annotated to clarify nuances, from me. If a cognate version was already available, that too was provided. A native speaker prepared a translation, a bilingual who had not seen the English version, prepared a back-translation, and these were returned to me. I checked the translation and back-translation, often with the aid of another bilingual, commented on any possible problems, and returned the commented back-translation. Typically, this process of translation, backtranslation, and comments required three iterations, sometimes more, to authorize a language version. The appendix of this article includes the protocol used for translations. The ESS website (https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round5/methods/ESS5_translation_guidelines.pdf) details the procedure used to translate the PVQ21.
Context. In keeping with the conception of basic values as trans-situational, the four instruments avoid specifying a context. Researchers may be interested, however, in how people’s values apply in specific contexts (e.g., at work) or relationships (e.g., with one’s family). People’s situational value priorities may vary around their trans-situational priorities. By modifying the instructions for these instruments, it is possible to measure values in specific contexts.
Rating vs. Ranking. The SVS uses a combination of rating and ranking for responses. Respondents first to choose their most and least important values from a list and then to use those as anchors when rating the remaining values. The PVQ instruments use only rating. Ranking provides the relative importance of each value; rating provides their absolute importance. With both the SVS and the PVQ, researchers can derive value priorities from the ratings. This is usually desirable because values relate to other variables based on tradeoffs between the values that promote vs. inhibit the other variables, that is, their relative priority.
Table 2 compares the four instruments on criteria relevant to choosing the one most appropriate for particular studies. I explicate some of these criteria whose meaning is not self-evident.
Table 2 about here
Sentences per item. The SVS lists an abstract value followed in parentheses by a synonym(s) or explanatory phrase). The PVQ21 and PVQ40 present one or two sentences describing a person for whom a value is important. The PVQ-RR avoids possible double-barreled items by presenting only one sentence, which also reduces response time.
Abstractness vs. Concreteness. Abstract instruments (e.g., the SVS) ask respondents to rate the importance of abstract items (e.g., ‘equality’ for universalism, ‘wealth’ for power). This approach assumes that individuals have consciously articulated, abstract values to which they have direct access, so they can report them accurately. More concrete and indirect approaches (e.g., the various PVQ instruments) present vignettes that describe people who hold particular values. Respondents indicate how similar each of the described people is to them. Examples are "It is important to her to have a good time” for hedonism values and “It is important to her never to annoy anyone" for conformity values. This approach assumes that, even without abstract conceptions of their own values, individuals can recognize their own values when making social comparisons.
Response Scale. Every point on the response scales for the PVQ instruments is labeled. For the SVS, points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not labeled. The response scales are asymmetrical. There are more points on the side of the scale indicating greater importance (SVS) and greater similarity to self (PVQ). This reflects the fact, established in pretesting that compared various scale configurations, that respondents utilize the ‘positive’ side of the scale more frequently. Therefore, the scales permit greater discrimination on the ‘positive’ side.
Discrimination of Values. The instruments differ in their adequacy for discriminating the values in the theory. The data for discrimination of values come from examination of the multidimensional scaling analyses of item responses in each sample. Only samples with at least 150 respondents were included. For each instrument, Table 2 reports the percent of samples studied that discriminated all of the 10(19) values. It also lists the percent of samples that discriminated at least 8(17) values plus a mixed pair of values that are adjacent in the theoretical circle. The numbers of samples examined were: SVS (49), PVQ21 (71), PVQ40 (97), PVQ-RR (90).
When comparing instruments on this criterion, it is important to keep two things in mind. The size and socio-economic level of the samples affect discrimination of values. Discrimination is usually better in samples with over 500 respondents and in samples from more socio-economically developed nations. All of the ESS samples exceeded 1000 respondents and came from relatively developed countries. For the other three instruments, the large majority of the samples included 150-300 respondents and came from both developing and developed nations around the world.
Appropriateness for Online use. All are easily administered online except the SVS. The SVS is problematic because it requires respondents to read through lists of value items before responding to the single items.

Full text

1
A Repository of Schwartz Value Scales with Instructions and
an Introduction
Shalom H. Schwartz , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Publication Date
9-5-2021
Abstract
This repository of value instruments includes the numerous authorized language versions of each of the four
instruments developed by Schwartz to measure the basic values in his theory: The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS),
the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ40), the PVQ21 (aka the Human Values Scale of the European Social
Survey [ESS21]), and the revised PVQ-RR. For each instrument, the repository includes instructions for coding and
analysis and the most important references relevant to it. A short introductory essay briefly outlines the key
assumptions underlying the theory and instruments, the principles that organize the values into a circle, and the
translation protocol. The essay includes a table that compares the four instruments on 12 characteristics relevant
for choosing the one most appropriate for use in a particular study.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Schwartz, S. H. (2021). A Repository of Schwartz Value Scales with Instructions and an Introduction. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173
A Repository of Schwartz Value Instruments
Introduction
This essay introduces the four instruments I have developed to measure the basic values
in my theory: The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ40),
the PVQ21 (aka the Human Values Scale of the European Social Survey [ESS21]), and the
revised PVQ-RR. The repository of value instruments accompanying this essay contains
numerous language versions of each of these instruments.
For in depth presentations of the basic theory of values and of literature based on it, I
recommend the following publications: Schwartz (1992), Schwartz et al. (2012), Schwartz
(2016), and Sagiv and Schwartz (2022). The most important references for each instrument are
listed in the instructions for coding and analyses for that instrument in the repository. This
essay provides an overview of the assumptions on which the theory is based, a listing of the
different values measured by the instruments, and a comparison of the instruments on a variety
of criteria.
The theory of basic values proposes three key assumptions:

2
(1) Values are cognitive representations of the motives (that is, goals) necessary to cope
with three universal requirements for human survival: (a) biological needs of the
organism, (b) interactive needs for interpersonal coordination, and (c) group needs for
welfare and survival. Each of the specific values is derived from one or more of these
three requirements. Because these requirements are universal, the values derived from
them are likely to be recognized across cultures.
(2) Values form a coherent structure based on the degree of compatibility or conflict
between the goals the values express. This implies that values form a circular structure in
which the more compatible any two values are, the closer they are going around the
circle, and the more in conflict, the more distant. Compatible values guide similar
perceptions, preferences, and behaviors, so one can pursue their goals successfully in the
same action. Conflicting values guide opposing perceptions, preferences, and behaviors,
so pursuing one precludes or inhibits pursuing the other. Table 1 presents the values and
the goals they express. Figure 1 presents their circular structure.
(3) The circle of values is a continuum in which values blend into one another rather than
forming discrete entities. This implies that one can partition the value circle arbitrarily
into as many or as few value categories as is useful. The original theory partitioned the
continuum into the ten values shown in the center of Figure 1. It grouped these values
into two pairs of higher order values to form two dimensions. The openness to change vs.
conservation dimension captures the conflict between independent thought, action, and
feelings, challenge and change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism values) and self-
restriction, preserving the past, order, and resistance to change (conformity, tradition, and
security values). The self-enhancement versus self-transcendence dimension captures the
conflict between concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism and

3
benevolence values) and concern for one's own interests, relative success, and dominance
over others (power and achievement values).
Table 1 about here
Subsequent research revealed that people reliably discriminate some 19 values in the
value circle. The refined value theory therefore partitions the circle into 19 values. The 19
values can be used when more fine-tuned analyses are desired. Table 1 presents 19 values and
the goals they express and shows their relations to the 10 values and 4 higher order values.
Two principles structure the order of the values around the circle in addition to their
conflict and compatibility. (a) Values that focus on personal outcomes (e.g., stimulation; see
Figure 1) contrast with values that focus on social outcomes (e.g., tradition). (b) Values that
express self-expansive, growth motivations (e.g., self-direction) contrast with values that
express self-protective motivations (e.g. security).
The circular structure of values has a key consequence: The whole circle of values
relates to other variables (behaviors, attitudes, personality traits, or demographics) in a
systematic manner. Relations of values with another variable (e.g., religiosity) usually decrease
monotonically in both directions around the circle from the most positively related value
(tradition) to the least positively or most negatively related value (hedonism). Deviations from
this pattern suggest that from multiple, different types of motivation influence the behavior or
attitude.
The past 30 years have seen the development of some 13 instruments to measure the 10
or 19 basic values of the Schwartz theory among children, adolescents and adults.1 Here, I
discuss three characteristics of the four instruments I developed whose language version are
available in the repository.
Translation. The same translation-backtranslation procedure was applied for
translating the SVS, PVQ40, and PVQ-RR. Those interested in preparing a translation received
an original English version of the instrument, annotated to clarify nuances, from me. If a
1 For a table listing and comparing the methodological characteristics of these instruments, see
Roccas, Sagiv and Navon (2017: pp. 42-44).

4
cognate version was already available, that too was provided. A native speaker prepared a
translation, a bilingual who had not seen the English version, prepared a back-translation, and
these were returned to me. I checked the translation and back-translation, often with the aid of
another bilingual, commented on any possible problems, and returned the commented back-
translation. Typically, this process of translation, backtranslation, and comments required three
iterations, sometimes more, to authorize a language version. The appendix of this article
includes the protocol used for translations. The ESS website
(https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round5/methods/ESS5_translation_guidelines.pdf
) details the procedure used to translate the PVQ21.
Context. In keeping with the conception of basic values as trans-situational, the four
instruments avoid specifying a context. Researchers may be interested, however, in how
people’s values apply in specific contexts (e.g., at work) or relationships (e.g., with one’s
family). People’s situational value priorities may vary around their trans-situational priorities.
By modifying the instructions for these instruments, it is possible to measure values in specific
contexts.2
Rating vs. Ranking. The SVS uses a combination of rating and ranking for responses.
Respondents first to choose their most and least important values from a list and then to use
those as anchors when rating the remaining values. The PVQ instruments use only rating.
Ranking provides the relative importance of each value; rating provides their absolute
importance. With both the SVS and the PVQ, researchers can derive value priorities from the
ratings. This is usually desirable because values relate to other variables based on tradeoffs
between the values that promote vs. inhibit the other variables, that is, their relative priority.
Table 2 compares the four instruments on criteria relevant to choosing the one most
appropriate for particular studies. I explicate some of these criteria whose meaning is not self-
evident.
Table 2 about here
2 See Daniel et al. (2012) for examples of how to do this.

5
Sentences per item. The SVS lists an abstract value followed in parentheses by a
synonym(s) or explanatory phrase). The PVQ21 and PVQ40 present one or two sentences
describing a person for whom a value is important. The PVQ-RR avoids possible double-
barreled items by presenting only one sentence, which also reduces response time.
Abstractness vs. Concreteness. Abstract instruments (e.g., the SVS) ask respondents
to rate the importance of abstract items (e.g., ‘equality’ for universalism, ‘wealth’ for power).
This approach assumes that individuals have consciously articulated, abstract values to which
they have direct access, so they can report them accurately. More concrete and indirect
approaches (e.g., the various PVQ instruments) present vignettes that describe people who hold
particular values. Respondents indicate how similar each of the described people is to them.
Examples are "It is important to her to have a good time” for hedonism values and “It is
important to her never to annoy anyone" for conformity values. This approach assumes that,
even without abstract conceptions of their own values, individuals can recognize their own
values when making social comparisons.
Response Scale. Every point on the response scales for the PVQ instruments is labeled.
For the SVS, points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not labeled. The response scales are asymmetrical. There
are more points on the side of the scale indicating greater importance (SVS) and greater
similarity to self (PVQ). This reflects the fact, established in pretesting that compared various
scale configurations, that respondents utilize the ‘positive’ side of the scale more frequently.
Therefore, the scales permit greater discrimination on the ‘positive’ side.
Discrimination of Values. The instruments differ in their adequacy for discriminating
the values in the theory. The data for discrimination of values come from examination of the
multidimensional scaling analyses of item responses in each sample. Only samples with at least
150 respondents were included. For each instrument, Table 2 reports the percent of samples
studied that discriminated all of the 10(19) values. It also lists the percent of samples that
discriminated at least 8(17) values plus a mixed pair of values that are adjacent in the

6
theoretical circle. The numbers of samples examined were: SVS (49), PVQ21 (71), PVQ40
(97), PVQ-RR (90).
When comparing instruments on this criterion, it is important to keep two things in
mind. The size and socio-economic level of the samples affect discrimination of values.
Discrimination is usually better in samples with over 500 respondents and in samples from
more socio-economically developed nations. All of the ESS samples exceeded 1000
respondents and came from relatively developed countries. For the other three instruments, the
large majority of the samples included 150-300 respondents and came from both developing
and developed nations around the world.
Appropriateness for Online use. All are easily administered online except the SVS.
The SVS is problematic because it requires respondents to read through lists of value items
before responding to the single items.

7
References
Daniel, E., Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Benish-Weisman, M., Boehnke, K., & Knafo, A.
(2012). Value differentiation in adolescence: The role of age and cultural complexity.
Child Development, 83, 322-336. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01694.x
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Navon, (2017). Methodological issues in studying personal values. In
S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective
(pp. 13-50). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Sagiv, L. & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of
Psychology, 73, doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical
tests in 20 cultural groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25) (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S00652601(08)60281-6
Schwartz, S. H. (2016). Basic individual values: sources and consequences. In T. Brosch, D.
Sander (eds.), Handbook of value: Perspective from economics, neuroscience, philosophy,
psychology and sociology (pp. 63-84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A.,
Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012).
Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 103, 663-688. doi:10.1037/a0029393.

8
Table 1.
The Four Higher Order Values, 10 Basic Values, and 19 More Narrowly Defined Values in the
Refined Theory of Values (adapted from Schwartz & Cieciuch, 2021).
Four higher order
values 10 original values 19 more narrowly defined values
Self-
transcendence
Benevolence - Preservation and
enhancement of the welfare of
people with whom one is in frequent
personal contact
Benevolence-Dependability - Being a reliable
and trustworthy member of the in-group
Benevolence-Caring - Devotion to the welfare
of in-group members
Universalism - Understanding,
appreciation, tolerance, and
protection for the welfare of all
people and of nature
Universalism-Tolerance - Acceptance and
understanding of those who are different from
oneself
Universalism-Concern - Commitment to
equality, justice, and protection for all people
Universalism-Nature - Preservation of the
natural environment
Humilitya - Recognizing one’s insignificance
in the larger scheme of things
Conservation
Conformity - The restraint of
actions, inclinations, and impulses
that are likely to upset or harm
others and violate social
expectations or norms
Conformity-Interpersonal - Avoidance of
upsetting or harming other people
Conformity-Rules - Compliance with rules,
laws, and formal obligations)
Tradition - Respect, commitment,
and acceptance of the customs and
ideas that traditional culture or
religion provides
Tradition - Maintaining and preserving
cultural, family, or religious traditions
Security - Safety, harmony, and
stability of society, relationships,
and self
Security-Societal - Safety and stability in the
wider society
Security-Personal - Safety in one’s immediate
environment
Facea - Security and power through

9
maintaining one’s public image and avoiding
humiliation
Self-
enhancement
Power - Control or dominance over
people and resources
Power-Resources - Power through control of
material and social resources
Power -Dominance - Power through
exercising control over people
Achievement - Personal success
through demonstrating competence
according to social standards
Achievement - Definition unchanged
Hedonism - Pleasure and sensuous
gratification for oneself Hedonisma - Definition unchanged
Openness to
change
Stimulation - Excitement, novelty,
and challenge in life
Stimulation - Definition unchanged
Self-Direction - Independent
thought and action, choosing,
creating, and exploring
Self-Direction-Action - The freedom to
determine one’s own actions
Self-Direction-Thought - The freedom to
cultivate one’s own ideas and abilities
Note. a Humility is located between the higher-order conservation and self-transcendence
values. Hedonism is located between the higher-order openness to change and self-
enhancement values. Face is located between the higher-order self-enhancement and
conservation values.
Table 2.
A Comparison of the Characteristics of Four Value Instruments.
Characteristic SVS PVQ21 (ESS21) PVQ40
# of distinct values
measured
4 higher order
10 basic
4 higher order
10 basic
4 higher order
10 basic
Time range for completion
by 90% of respondents 10 - 20 minutes 2 - 5 minutes 4 – 8 minutes
# of items 57 21 40

10
Sentences per item 1 (phrase) 2 2
Type of items Abstract terms Vignettes Vignettes
Item phrasing VALUE TERM
(specifying term)
Importance sentence +
goal, wish, or aspiration
sentence
Importance sentence +
goal, wish, or aspiration
sentence
Response scale
-1 opposed to my values
0 not at all important
7 of supreme importance
0 not like me at all
4 moderately like me
6 very much like me
0 not like me at all
4 moderately like me
6 very much like me
Average alpha reliability
of the values (range) 10 values: .61 (.54 - .71) 10 values: .57 (.41 - .70) 10 values: .64 (.47 - .75)
Discrimination of values:
% samples: 10 distinct
at least 8 distinct + pair
30%
76%
79%
96%
44%
88%
# of language versions 43 35 36
Online use? problematic yes yes
Suitable for ages 16+ 13+ 13+
To download specific scales and instructions, go to: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173

11
Figure 1.
Circular Motivational Continuum of the Values in the Schwartz Value Theory (from Sagiv &
Schwartz, 2022).

12
APPENDIX
Translation guideline for the Schwartz value instruments
The procedure requires that at least 3 highly competent bilinguals. The steps are as follows:
1. Translate the instrument to xx [language] including the instructions and scale labels.
2. Obtain a back-translation into English by a person who has not seen the original English.
Send both the translation and back-translation to me [Shalom Schwartz]
3. I send you my comments on the translation, usually on about 50% of the items.
4. Make changes in the items commented, as needed
5. Give the new full translation (including all items, instructions, scale labels) to a different
bilingual to translate back into English
6. Send me the revised translation and back-translation
7. I send you my comments on the revised translation
8. Repeat 4-7 until we reach an agreed translation
An alternative to (1-2) is to obtain two independent translations and then have the two
translators meet to discuss their differences, before going to the bilingual who will back-
translate and send to me.
Below are listed the specific coding instructions and available value scales in the various languages.
ESS21 (PVQ21)
0 Coding and syntax
Austria m&f
Belgium Flemish m&f
Belgium French m&f
Chinese Simplified MF
Cyprus m&f
Czech Republic m&f
Denmark m&f
English m&f
Estonia Estonian m&f
Estonia Russian m&f
Finland m&f
France French mf
Germany m&f
Greece m&f
Hungary m&f same
Iceland Icelandic m&f
Ireland m&F English
Israel Arabic m&f
Israel Hebrew m&f
Israel Russian m&f
Italy m&f

13
Latvian m&f
Luxembourg Luxembourgish m&f +
Netherlands m&f
Norway m&f
Poland m&f draft
Portugal m&f
Romanian person A rather than m&f
Russian m&f
Slovakia Hungarian m&f
Slovakia Slovakian m&f
Slovenia m&f together
Spain Catalan m&f
Spain Spanish m&f
Sweden m&f
Switzerland m&f Fr Ger It
Turkey Turkish
Ukraine Russian m&f
Ukraine Ukrainian m&f
United Kingdom m&f English
PVQ-RR
Coding & analysis instructions PVQ-RR
PVQ-RR Albanian MF
PVQ-RR Amharic MF
PVQ-RR Arabic M&F
PVQ-RR Bahasa Indonesia mf same
PVQ-RR Bahasa Malaysia MF same
PVQ-RR Basque mf same Gil de Montes
PVQ-RR Bengali MF
PVQ-RR Chinese MF traditional revised
PVQ-RR Chinese MF traditional Taiwan
PVQ-RR Chinese MF
PVQ-RR Chinese Simplified MF
PVQ-RR Croatian MF
PVQ-RR Czech m&f
PVQ-RR Dutch M&F Kruijf & van Berkum adjusted Velema
PVQ-RR Eng M&F
PVQ-RR Estonian mF same
PVQ-RR Faroese M&F
PVQ-RR Filipino mf same
PVQ-RR Finnish mf
PVQ-RR French MF France Hammer
PVQ-RR French MF SWitz Pulfrey
PVQ-RR Georgian M&F same
PVQ-RR German MF
PVQ-RR Greek MF
PVQ-RR Hebrew MF
PVQ-RR Hindi MF
PVQ-RR Icelandic M & F
PVQ-RR Inuktitut mf same
PVQ-RR Italian MF
PVQ-RR Japanese mf same
PVQ-RR Kiswahili mf same
PVQ-RR Korean MF
PVQ-RR Macedonian MF
PVQ-RR Norwegian m&f
PVQ-RR Persian mf same
PVQ-RR Polish mf
PVQ-RR Portuguese MF Brazil
PVQ-RR Portuguese MF Portugal

14
PVQ-RR Romanian M&F
PVQ-RR Russian MF
PVQ-RR Serbian MF
PVQ-RR Sinhalese MF
PVQ-RR Slovak m&f
PVQ-RR Spanish Costa Rica MF
PVQ-RR Spanish m&f Bobowik
PVQ-RR Swedish MF
PVQ-RR Thai mf
PVQ-RR Turkish mf same
PVQ-RR Ukrainian MF
PVQ-RR Urdu MF
PVQ-RR Vietnamese M&F
PVQ40
Coding Key PVQ40
PQ 40 Arabic Algeria
PQ 40 Arabic M&F
PQ IV Chinese easy Wang Xiaoming
PQ IV Chinese for adolescents
PQ IV Chinese Simplified MF Chen Dadi
PQ IV ChineseMF (traditional) Sun
PQ IV CzechM
PQ IV DanishM&F
PQ IV DutchMF PSmit
PQ IV EnglishM&F
PQ IV Estonian
PQ IV Farsi (MF same)
PQ IV Finland (MF same)
PQ IV French Quebec
PQ IV FrenchMF
PQ IV Georgian final (MF same)
PQ IV German MF with key
PQ IV Greek MF
PQ IV HebrewM&F
PQ IV HungarianM&Fsame
PQ IV Indonesia Bahasa M&F same
PQ IV Italian M&F
PQ IV JapanMF
PQ IV Korean
PQ IV Lithuanian MF
PQ IV M&F Spanish Mexico
PQ IV Malay MF
PQ IV Malayia Bahasa Melayu
PQ IV Norwegian M&F
PQ IV Philippines (FilipinoTagolog)
PQ IV Polish m&f
PQ IV PortugueseM&F
PQ IV Romanian M&F
PQ IV RussianM
PQ IV Slovak MF
PQ IV Spanish M (Chile)
PQ IV SpanishM (Mexico)
PQ IV SpanishM&F (Spain)
PQ IV SpanishM&F (Venezuela)
PQ IV SwedishMF
PQ IV Tamil
PQ IV Turkish
PQ IV UkrainianM&F

15
PQ IV Urdu
PQ IV VietnameseM&F
SVS
0 Coding and Analysis Instructions for SVS
SVS57Afrikaans
SVS57Albanian
SVS57Arabic Israel
SVS57Arabic Oman
SVS57Armenian
SVS57Bosnian
SVS57Bulgarian
SVS57Chinese simplified
SVS57Chinese Traditional
SVS57Croatian no accents
SVS57Czech
SVS57Danish
SVS57Dutch
SVS57East Timor Bahasa
SVS57East Timor Portuguese
SVS57English
SVS57Estonian
SVS57Filipino (Tagolog)
SVS57Finish
SVS57French
SVS57German
Svs57Greek
SVS57Hebrew Israel
SVS57Hindi
SVS57Hungarian
SVS57Italian
SVS57Japanese
SVS57Korean
SVS57Latvian
SVS57Lithuanian
SVS57Macedonian
SVS57MalaysiaMelayu Bahasa
SVS57Norwegian
SVS57Persian Iran
SVS57Polish
SVS57Portuguese (some orthography problems)
SVS57Romainian
SVS57Russian
SVS57Spanish Adult address
SVS57Spanish Argentina
SVS57Spanish Mexico
SVS57Spanish Spain
SVS57Swedish
SVS57Thai
SVS57Turkish
SVS57Ukranian
SVS57Vietnamese