Constructing Validity: New Developments in Creating Objective Measuring Instruments
Constructing Validity: New Developments in Creating Objective Measuring Instruments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/pas0000626
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Watson, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clark, Lee Anna;Watson, David
在Clark和Watson（1995）的更新中，我们提供了我们早期文章的主要观点的概要，并讨论了在过去25年里随着临床和人格评估的发展而变得更加突出的量表构建问题。量表发展的主要目标仍然是为潜在结构创建有效的测量方法，Loevinger的理论方案为量表发展提供了一个强大的模型。我们仍然讨论实际问题，以帮助开发人员最大限度地提高他们的测量的结构效度，重申(a)目标结构的清晰概念化，(b)一个过于包容的初始项目池，(c)仔细注意项目措辞，(d)根据密切相关的结构测试项目池，(e)仔细选择验证样本，以及(f)强调单维性而不是内部一致性的重要性。我们增加了(g)在量表开发中考虑人格和精神病理学的等级结构，讨论(h)在这些结构的背景下共同开发量表，(i)“孤儿”和“间隙”构念，它们不完全适合这些结构，(j)“综合”构念的问题，以及(k)开发替代版本的测量，包括简短形式，翻译。信息版本，以及基于年龄的适应。最后，我们扩展了我们对(1)项目反应理论和外部效度的讨论，强调(m)收敛效度和判别效度，(n)增量效度，(o)交叉方法分析，如问卷调查和访谈。最后，我们重申，所有成熟的科学都是建立在可靠测量的基础上的，心理学必须加倍努力，开发可靠有效的测量方法。
In this update of Clark and Watson (1995), we provide a synopsis of major points of our earlier article and discuss issues in scale construction that have become more salient as clinical and personality assessment has progressed over the past quarter-century. It remains true that the primary goal of scale development is to create valid measures of underlying constructs and that Loevinger's theoretical scheme provides a powerful model for scale development. We still discuss practical issues to help developers maximize their measures' construct validity, reiterating the importance of (a) clear conceptualization of target constructs, (b) an overinclusive initial item pool, (c) paying careful attention to item wording, (d) testing the item pool against closely related constructs, (e) choosing validation samples thoughtfully, and (f) emphasizing unidimensionality over internal consistency. We have added (g) consideration of the hierarchical structures of personality and psychopathology in scale development, discussion of (h) codeveloping scales in the context of these structures, (i) "orphan," and "interstitial" constructs, which do not fit neatly within these structures, (j) problems with "conglomerate" constructs, and (k) developing alternative versions of measures, including short forms, translations. informant versions, and age-based adaptations. Finally, we have expanded our discussions of (I) item-response theory and of external validity, emphasizing (m) convergent and discriminant validity, (n) incremental validity, and (o) cross-method analyses, such as questionnaires and interviews. We conclude by reaffirming that all mature sciences are built on the bedrock of sound measurement and that psychology must redouble its efforts to develop reliable and valid measures.