An Example of Convergent and Discriminant Validation of Personality Questionnaires

  • Georg Rudinger
  • Norbert Dommel

Abstract

Within the last 5 years efforts at validating personality questionnaires via the multitrait-multimethod strategy (MTMM) originally proposed by Campbell and Fiske (1959; Jackson & Paunonon, 1980) have been redoubled. This interest is of course spurred on by the realization that what is actually being measured in any personality instrument is not solely the trait itself but rather the trait confounded with the method used. Rezmovic and Rezmovic (1981) succinctly summarize this state of affairs by saying that “each measure is a trait-method unit in which observed variance is a combined function of variance due to the construct being measured and the method used to measure that construct” (Rezmovic & Rezmovic, 1981, p. 61). In any attempt to introduce new personality questionnaires it has become standard practice to include some form of multitrait-multimethod analysis. While this practice is straightforward in itself, many different statistical approaches have been suggested for this purpose (Jackson, 1975; Hubert & Baker, 1978). In fact, the variety of different analyses has justified a general review and critique of approaches (Schmitt, Coyle, & Saari, 1977). Of the many proposals suggested for MTMM, the approach via confirmatory factor analysis seems to be the most straightforward and promising in this context (Schmitt, 1978; Rezmovic & Rezmovic, 1980, 1981).

Keywords

Covariance Univer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 ,81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fiske, D.W. (1973). Can a personality construct be validated empirically? Psychological Bul letin, 80 ,89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fiske, D.W. (1976). Can a personality construct have a singular validational pattern? Rejoinder to Huba and Hamilton. Psychological Bulletin, 83 ,877–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hubert, L.J., & Baker, F.B. (1978). Analyzing the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Multivari ate Behavioral Research, 13 ,163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson, D.N. (1975). Multimethod factor analysis: A reformulation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10 ,253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, D.N., & Paunonon, S.V. (1980). Personality structure and assessment. Annual Re view of Psychology, 31 ,503–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods (Research Rep. 81–8). Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
  8. Rezmovic, EX., & Rezmovic, V. (1980). Empirical validation of psychological constructs: A secondary analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 87 ,66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rezmovic, EX., & Rezmovic, V. (1981). A confirmatory factor analysis approach to construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 ,61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schmitt, N. (1978). Path analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2 ,157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmitt, N., Coyle, B.W., & Saari, B.B. (1977). A review and critique of analyses of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12 ,447–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stumpf, H., Angleitner, A., Wieck, T., Jackson, D.N., Beloch-Till, H. (1985). Deutsche “Personality Research Form” (PRF). Göttingen, Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Tucker, L.R. (1958). An inter-battery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23 ,111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Rudinger
  • Norbert Dommel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations