Construct Validity in Psychological Tests¶
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Construct Validity
- The signature is not a single test but a structured family of probes: convergent validity (does the measure agree with other measures of the same construct?), discriminant validity (does it diverge from measures of distinct constructs?), nomological validity (does it covary in theory-predicted ways with adjacent constructs?), Face validity (does it look like the construct?), and predictive validity (does it forecast what the construct should forecast?).
This sourceFoundational paper introducing construct validity and the nomological network; defines convergent, discriminant, and nomological evidence.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Cronbach and Meehl give predictive validity and the nomological network, but do not name convergent or discriminant validity and mention face validity only in passing.
“The categories into which the Rec- ommendations divide validity studies are: predictive validity, concurrent validity, content validity, and con- struct validity.”
- The signature is not a single test but a structured family of probes: convergent validity (does the measure agree with other measures of the same construct?), discriminant validity (does it diverge from measures of distinct constructs?), nomological validity (does it covary in theory-predicted ways with adjacent constructs?), Face validity (does it look like the construct?), and predictive validity (does it forecast what the construct should forecast?).
- Validation
- Psychometrics & social science: Construct validity (does the instrument measure what it claims to measure?), convergent validity (does it correlate with related measures?), criterion validity (does it predict the outcome it purports to?), external validity (do findings generalize beyond the study sample?), a typology Cronbach and Meehl (1955) established in their canonical treatment of construct validity.
This sourceCanonical paper establishing the typology of construct, convergent, criterion, and content validity that anchors psychometric and social-science validation practice.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Cronbach and Meehl present construct validity and a four-part typology (predictive, concurrent, content, construct), not the claimed construct/convergent/criterion/external set.
“The categories into which the Rec- ommendations divide validity studies are: predictive validity, concurrent validity, content validity, and con- struct validity.”
- Psychometrics & social science: Construct validity (does the instrument measure what it claims to measure?), convergent validity (does it correlate with related measures?), criterion validity (does it predict the outcome it purports to?), external validity (do findings generalize beyond the study sample?), a typology Cronbach and Meehl (1955) established in their canonical treatment of construct validity.
Mechanisms¶
- Alternate-Modality Sensing
- The guard is to require construct validity
This sourceDefines construct validity as evidence that a measure behaves as predicted by the theoretical construct it is intended to measure.
- The guard is to require construct validity
- Construct Mapping Table
- The construct-validity risk is real: a target-scale proxy can share a name with the source construct while capturing a different underlying thing.
This sourceShows that the same construct label can mask materially different underlying attributes.
- The construct-validity risk is real: a target-scale proxy can share a name with the source construct while capturing a different underlying thing.
- Factor-Structure or Latent-Model Check
- Its central trap is that *good fit is not right meaning
This sourceExplains that internal consistency alone does not establish what construct a test measures.
- Its central trap is that *good fit is not right meaning
- Local / Regional / Global Indicator Set
- Its failure mode is construct validity
This sourceExplains construct validity as the evidence needed to justify interpreting a measure as representing its intended attribute.
- Its failure mode is construct validity
- Local Witness Checklist
- This is a construct-validity gap.
This sourceDefines construct validity as the evidential basis for interpreting a test as measuring the theoretical attribute it purports to measure.
- This is a construct-validity gap.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 7 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:37701fa9764c · see in the full table