Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: comment on Neuberg et al.'s (1997) critique of the need for closure scale.
Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: comment on Neuberg et al.'s (1997) critique of the need for closure scale.
复制标题
心理理论测试与心理测量学的否定：对 Neuberg 等人 (1997) 对封闭量表必要性的批评的评论。
DOI：
10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.1005
复制
发表时间：
1997
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Webster,DM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kruglanski,AW;Atash,MN;DeGrada,E;Mannetti,L;Pierro,A;Webster,DM
SL Neuberg，TN Judice和SG West（1997）对我们的需要关闭量表（NFCS）的工作提出了批评，理由是NFCS相对于SL Neuberg和JT Newsom（1993）的个人需要结构（PNS）量表缺乏判别效度，并且是多维的，因此他们声称，使用其总分是不可接受的。相比之下，本作者表明，上述主张都与闭包理论的基本需求不相容。NFCS和PNS之间的关系是意料之中的，因为这些关系的设计目的是实施相同的结构（需要关闭）。此外，NFCS没有单维性，也不需要使用它的总分来测试各种理论推导的预测。一个工具的最终效用取决于理论考虑和经验证据，而不是与手头的实质性问题无关的可疑的心理测量学教条。
SL Neuberg, TN Judice, and SG West (1997) faulted our work with the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) on grounds that the NFCS lacks discriminant validity relative to SL Neuberg's and JT Newsom's (1993) Personal Need for Structure (PNS) Scale and is multidimensional, which, so they claim, renders the use of its total score inadmissible. By contrast, the present authors show that neither of the above assertions is incompatible with the underlying need for closure theory. Relations between NFCS and the PNS are to be expected, as these were designed to operationalize the very same construct (of need for closure). Furthermore, no unidimensionality of the NFCS has been claimed, and none is required to use its total score for testing various theoretically derived predictions. An instrument's ultimate utility hinges on theoretical considerations and empirical evidence rather than on questionable psychometric dogma unrelated to the substantive matters at hand.