Construct validity in psychological tests

Abstract

Construct Validity in Psychological Tests VALIDATION of psychological tests has not yet been adequately concep• tua1ized, as the APA Committee on Psychological Tests learned when it undertook (1950-54) to specify what qualities should be investigated before a test is published. In order to make coherent recommendations the Committee found it necessary to distinguish four types of validity, established by different types of research and requiring different interpre• tation. The chief innovation in the Committee's report was the term constmct validity.* This idea was first formulated hy a subcommittee {Meehl and R. C. Cballman) studying how proposed recommendations would apply to projective techniques, and later modified and clarified by the entire Committee {Bordin, Challman, Conrad, Humphreys, Super, and the present writers). The statements agreed upon by tbe Committee (and by committees of two other associations) were published in the Technical Recommendations (59). The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas in which the Committee would probably not be unanimous. The present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications. Identification of construct validity was not an isolated development. Writers on validity during the preceding decade had shown a great deal of dissatisfaction with conventional notions of validity, and intro• dnced new terms and ideas, hut the resulting aggregation of types of * Referred to in a preliminary report (58) as cougruent validity. NOTE: The second author worked on this problem in connect ion with his appoint• mcn t to the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science. \ Ve are indebted to the other members of the Center (Herbert Feigl, l'vlichael Scriven, \.Vilfricl Sellars), and h> D. L. Thistlcthwaitc of the University of Illinois, for their m;1jor c:o11trilmtions to ou r thi11king a11c1 their sugges tions for improving this paper. T he paper li rst appc;ll'l'<I i11 /'.>•dwlogie:rl l311llcti11, July 1955, and is reprinted here, wi th minor :ilti;rations. hy pl'1111issio11 of Ilic editor :ind of the authors.

Are common measures of dietary restraint and disinhibited eating reliable and valid in obese persons?

“…Convergent validity was tested by computing Pearson's correlations among lifetime history of fasting vs. measures of dietary restraint, and between lifetime history of binge eating vs. measures of disinhibited eating. Evidence for discriminant validity is provided when the magnitude of correlations among constructs that are thought not to be strongly conceptually related are in the low to moderate range (and lower than correlations among constructs that are thought to be conceptually related) (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Discriminant validity was tested by computing Pearson's correlations between lifetime history of fasting vs. measures of non-disordered-eating psychopathology (e.g., substance use problems), and between lifetime history of binge eating vs. measures of non-disordered-eating psychopathology.…”

“…Evidence for convergent validity is demonstrated when the magnitude of correlations among constructs that are thought to be strongly conceptually related are strong (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Convergent validity was tested by computing Pearson's correlations among lifetime history of fasting vs. measures of dietary restraint, and between lifetime history of binge eating vs. measures of disinhibited eating.…”

A study on validity and reliability of on-farm tests to measure human–animal relationship in horses and donkeys

“…To gauge the predictive validity of a human-horse/donkey test -a measure of the efficiency of a test to predict results (Acock, 2008;Cronbach and Meehl, 1955) -the selection of the facilities to be assessed is crucial and must be carefully performed in order to ensure coherence with the pre-determined level of quality in the human-animal relationship. One option is to take into consideration previous assessments performed by competent local authorities operating in the area of control of animal welfare.…”

Comparative Personality Assessment of Three Captive Primate Species: Macaca nigra, Macaca sylvanus, and Saimiri sciureus

“…We tested the interrater reliability of personality assessments, i.e., the ability of two or more raters to agree on the ratings given to a particular individual, and the construct validity of personality assessments, i.e., the ability of the rating procedure to measure a Bpostulated attribute^ (Cronbach and Meehl 1955;Uher 2011b). Primate personality studies that have been subjected to reliability testing have demonstrated that high interrater reliability estimates, comparable to human and other animal personality research, can be achieved (Freeman and Gosling 2010).…”