The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators
The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00223890701468568
复制
发表时间：
2007-10-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Goldberg, Lewis R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grucza, Richard A.;Goldberg, Lewis R.
在科学上，对相同结构的多个测量可能是有用的，但它们不太可能都是同样有效的指标。在心理评估中，市场上许多流行的人格问卷也可能有用，但它们的相对效度长期以来一直没有得到评估。这是第一次对11种这样的多尺度工具与三种标准中的每一种进行全面比较：行为行为集群、消息灵通的线人的描述以及可能与各种类型的精神病理学相关的临床指标。使用来自大约700名成人研究参与者样本的1000个Bootstrap重新抽样分析，我们评估了每个标准的相对可预测性和每个问卷的相对有效性。尽管标准的可预测性范围很广，但大多数清单在所有三种标准的平均情况下表现出非常相似的交叉效度。另一方面，在对特定标准的预测能力方面，库存之间存在重大差异。我们讨论了导致不同预测者和标准之间差异有效性的因素。
In science, multiple measures of the same constructs can be useful, but they are unlikely to all be equally valid indicators. In psychological assessment, the many popular personality inventories available in the marketplace also may be useful, but their comparative validity has long remained unassessed. This is the first comprehensive comparison of 11 such multiscale instruments against each of three types of criteria: clusters of behavioral acts, descriptions by knowledgeable informants, and clinical indicators potentially associated with various types of psychopathology. Using 1,000 bootstrap resampling analyses from a sample of roughly 700 adult research participants, we assess the relative predictability of each criterion and the comparative validity of each inventory. Although there was a wide range of criterion predictability, most inventories exhibited quite similar cross-validities when averaged across all three types of criteria. On the other hand, there were important differences between inventories in their predictive capabilities for particular criteria. We discuss the factors that lead to differential validity across predictors and criteria.