[05/02/2024] Reads on Construct Validation

Previous[05/04/2024] NLP and Chatbot on Personality Assessment (Tianjun)Next[04/25/2024] Reads on Validity

Last updated 1 year ago

[05/02/2024] Reads on Construct Validation

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science

Abstract

The verity of results about a psychological construct hinges on the validity of its measurement, making construct validation a fundamental methodology to the scientific process. We reviewed a representative sample of articles published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for construct validity evidence. We report that latent variable measurement, in which responses to items are used to represent a construct, is pervasive in social and personality research. However, the field does not appear to be engaged in best practices for ongoing construct validation. We found that validity evidence of existing and author-developed scales was lacking, with coefficient α often being the only psychometric evidence reported. We provide a discussion of why the construct validation framework is important for social and personality researchers and recommendations for improving practice.

Summary

The authors reviewed articles from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology to assess the current practices of construct validation. They found that while latent variable measurement is common in the field, best practices for ongoing construct validation are lacking. The document emphasizes the significance of construct validation in ensuring the validity of measurement in psychological research and provides recommendations for improving practices in this area. Key points and arguments from the document include:
Construct validation is crucial for ensuring the validity of measurement in psychological research.
The field of social and personality research often relies on latent variable measurement to represent constructs.
The document highlights the lack of validity evidence for existing and author-developed scales, with coefficient alpha often being the only reported psychometric evidence.
Recommendations are provided for improving construct validation practices in social and personality research.
The document emphasizes the importance of ongoing construct validation to support the verity of results in psychological research.
Key Findings:
Latent variable measurement is pervasive in social and personality research.
Lack of validity evidence for existing and author-developed scales.
Recommendations for improving construct validation practices.
Importance of ongoing construct validation for supporting research findings.

Takeaways

How prevalent is latent variable measurement in social research?
Latent variable measurement is pervasive in social and personality research, with responses to items commonly used to represent constructs in the field. On average, latent variable measurement accounted for 87% of the measures used in social and personality psychology research.

What are common constructs represented by latent variables in research?
Common constructs represented by latent variables in social and personality research include attitudes, life satisfaction, status, and various psychological phenomena that are typically unobservable (such as attitudes).

What are examples of latent variables in psychological research?
In psychological research, examples of latent variables include attitudes, life satisfaction, status, and various psychological phenomena that are typically unobservable. These latent constructs are often measured using scales, surveys, questionnaires, and tests, where responses to items are used to represent the underlying construct. The process of construct validation is crucial in ensuring that the measures appropriately represent the latent variables of interest

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.

Summary

The author discusses the concept of validity in psychological assessment, emphasizing the need for a unified approach that considers not only traditional validity types (content, criterion, and construct) but also the value implications of score meaning and the social consequences of score use. The new unified concept of validity integrates these aspects into a construct framework for testing hypotheses about score meaning and relationships. Six aspects of construct validity are highlighted: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential. The document stresses the importance of validity in all assessments, including performance assessments, and addresses sources of invalidity such as construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance. It also discusses the importance of evidence in construct validity and the need to evaluate the fit of information with theoretical rationales for score interpretation.
Traditional validity types: content, criterion, and construct
Unified concept of validity integrating value implications and social consequences
Six aspects of construct validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential
Importance of validity in all assessments, including performance assessments
Sources of invalidity: construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance
Importance of evidence in construct validity and evaluating fit with theoretical rationales

Takeaways

How does the unified concept of validity enhance assessment practices?
The unified concept of validity enhances assessment practices by providing a comprehensive framework that integrates various aspects of validity to address the complexities inherent in appraising the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of score inferences. This unified concept highlights six distinguishable aspects of construct validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential, which serve as general validity criteria for all educational and psychological measurement. By considering these aspects, researchers and practitioners can ensure that the evidence and inferences drawn from test scores are well-supported and aligned with theoretical rationales, leading to more robust score interpretations and actions. Additionally, the unified concept of validity emphasizes the importance of integrating evidence related to both score meaning and value implications, thereby promoting a more holistic approach to test validation that considers the social consequences and ethical implications of assessment practices

What are the six aspects of construct validity?
Content aspect, which includes evidence of content relevance, representativeness, and technical quality
Substantive aspect, which refers to theoretical rationales for observed consistencies in test responses and empirical evidence that theoretical processes are engaged by respondents
Structural aspect, which appraises the fidelity of scoring structure to the structure of the construct domain at issue
Generalizability aspect, which examines the extent to which score properties and interpretations generalize to and across population groups, settings, and tasks
External aspect, which includes convergent and discriminant evidence from multitrait-multimethod comparisons and evidence of criterion relevance and applied utility
Consequential aspect, which appraises the value implications of score interpretation as a basis for action and the actual and potential consequences of test use

How does the consequential aspect relate to construct validity?
The consequential aspect of construct validity is closely related to the overall construct validity framework. This aspect involves evaluating the value implications of score interpretation as a basis for action and assessing the actual and potential consequences of test use, especially in terms of sources of invalidity related to issues of bias, fairness, and distributive justice. The consequential aspect considers both the intended and unintended consequences of score interpretation and use, including short- and long-term effects. It examines the social consequences of testing, which can be either positive or negative, such as improved educational policies based on international comparisons of student performance or negative impacts associated with bias in scoring and interpretation. The consequential aspect is essential in ensuring that the outcomes of test interpretation and use align with the intended purposes and do not lead to adverse effects resulting from sources of test invalidity.

What are the social consequences of testing in educational settings?
In educational settings, the social consequences of testing can have both positive and negative impacts. Positive consequences may include benefits such as improved teaching and learning practices, while negative consequences could arise from sources of test invalidity, such as construct underrepresentation or construct-irrelevant variance. It is crucial to assess both potential and actual social consequences of testing to ensure that any adverse effects are not attributable to test invalidity and to make informed decisions about test interpretation and use.

Previous[05/04/2024] NLP and Chatbot on Personality Assessment (Tianjun)Next[04/25/2024] Reads on Validity

Last updated 1 year ago

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science

Abstract

The verity of results about a psychological construct hinges on the validity of its measurement, making construct validation a fundamental methodology to the scientific process. We reviewed a representative sample of articles published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology for construct validity evidence. We report that latent variable measurement, in which responses to items are used to represent a construct, is pervasive in social and personality research. However, the field does not appear to be engaged in best practices for ongoing construct validation. We found that validity evidence of existing and author-developed scales was lacking, with coefficient α often being the only psychometric evidence reported. We provide a discussion of why the construct validation framework is important for social and personality researchers and recommendations for improving practice.

Summary

The authors reviewed articles from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology to assess the current practices of construct validation. They found that while latent variable measurement is common in the field, best practices for ongoing construct validation are lacking. The document emphasizes the significance of construct validation in ensuring the validity of measurement in psychological research and provides recommendations for improving practices in this area. Key points and arguments from the document include:
Construct validation is crucial for ensuring the validity of measurement in psychological research.
The field of social and personality research often relies on latent variable measurement to represent constructs.
The document highlights the lack of validity evidence for existing and author-developed scales, with coefficient alpha often being the only reported psychometric evidence.
Recommendations are provided for improving construct validation practices in social and personality research.
The document emphasizes the importance of ongoing construct validation to support the verity of results in psychological research.
Key Findings:
Latent variable measurement is pervasive in social and personality research.
Lack of validity evidence for existing and author-developed scales.
Recommendations for improving construct validation practices.
Importance of ongoing construct validation for supporting research findings.

Takeaways

How prevalent is latent variable measurement in social research?
Latent variable measurement is pervasive in social and personality research, with responses to items commonly used to represent constructs in the field. On average, latent variable measurement accounted for 87% of the measures used in social and personality psychology research.

What are common constructs represented by latent variables in research?
Common constructs represented by latent variables in social and personality research include attitudes, life satisfaction, status, and various psychological phenomena that are typically unobservable (such as attitudes).

What are examples of latent variables in psychological research?
In psychological research, examples of latent variables include attitudes, life satisfaction, status, and various psychological phenomena that are typically unobservable. These latent constructs are often measured using scales, surveys, questionnaires, and tests, where responses to items are used to represent the underlying construct. The process of construct validation is crucial in ensuring that the measures appropriately represent the latent variables of interest

2MB

validity of psychological assessment.pdf

pdf

Summary

The author discusses the concept of validity in psychological assessment, emphasizing the need for a unified approach that considers not only traditional validity types (content, criterion, and construct) but also the value implications of score meaning and the social consequences of score use. The new unified concept of validity integrates these aspects into a construct framework for testing hypotheses about score meaning and relationships. Six aspects of construct validity are highlighted: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential. The document stresses the importance of validity in all assessments, including performance assessments, and addresses sources of invalidity such as construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance. It also discusses the importance of evidence in construct validity and the need to evaluate the fit of information with theoretical rationales for score interpretation.
Traditional validity types: content, criterion, and construct
Unified concept of validity integrating value implications and social consequences
Six aspects of construct validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential
Importance of validity in all assessments, including performance assessments
Sources of invalidity: construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance
Importance of evidence in construct validity and evaluating fit with theoretical rationales

Takeaways

How does the unified concept of validity enhance assessment practices?
The unified concept of validity enhances assessment practices by providing a comprehensive framework that integrates various aspects of validity to address the complexities inherent in appraising the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of score inferences. This unified concept highlights six distinguishable aspects of construct validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential, which serve as general validity criteria for all educational and psychological measurement. By considering these aspects, researchers and practitioners can ensure that the evidence and inferences drawn from test scores are well-supported and aligned with theoretical rationales, leading to more robust score interpretations and actions. Additionally, the unified concept of validity emphasizes the importance of integrating evidence related to both score meaning and value implications, thereby promoting a more holistic approach to test validation that considers the social consequences and ethical implications of assessment practices

What are the six aspects of construct validity?
Content aspect, which includes evidence of content relevance, representativeness, and technical quality
Substantive aspect, which refers to theoretical rationales for observed consistencies in test responses and empirical evidence that theoretical processes are engaged by respondents
Structural aspect, which appraises the fidelity of scoring structure to the structure of the construct domain at issue
Generalizability aspect, which examines the extent to which score properties and interpretations generalize to and across population groups, settings, and tasks
External aspect, which includes convergent and discriminant evidence from multitrait-multimethod comparisons and evidence of criterion relevance and applied utility
Consequential aspect, which appraises the value implications of score interpretation as a basis for action and the actual and potential consequences of test use

How does the consequential aspect relate to construct validity?
The consequential aspect of construct validity is closely related to the overall construct validity framework. This aspect involves evaluating the value implications of score interpretation as a basis for action and assessing the actual and potential consequences of test use, especially in terms of sources of invalidity related to issues of bias, fairness, and distributive justice. The consequential aspect considers both the intended and unintended consequences of score interpretation and use, including short- and long-term effects. It examines the social consequences of testing, which can be either positive or negative, such as improved educational policies based on international comparisons of student performance or negative impacts associated with bias in scoring and interpretation. The consequential aspect is essential in ensuring that the outcomes of test interpretation and use align with the intended purposes and do not lead to adverse effects resulting from sources of test invalidity.

What are the social consequences of testing in educational settings?
In educational settings, the social consequences of testing can have both positive and negative impacts. Positive consequences may include benefits such as improved teaching and learning practices, while negative consequences could arise from sources of test invalidity, such as construct underrepresentation or construct-irrelevant variance. It is crucial to assess both potential and actual social consequences of testing to ensure that any adverse effects are not attributable to test invalidity and to make informed decisions about test interpretation and use.