Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Construct Validity: Developments and Debates

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Validating Psychological Constructs

Abstract

The early history of developments in construct validity theory (CVT) is traced through a review of works either critiquing the utility of the framework or extending it to a broader range of testing contexts and considerations. The works of Brodbeck (1957), Bechtoldt (1959), Loevinger (1957), and Campbell and Fiske (1959) are emphasized. Important advances in psychometric theory and methods in the 1960s and 70s are also described. Developments in CVT as reflected in the first two revisions of what is today known as the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (the “Standards”) are summarized. Finally, respective post–1955 works of Lee Crobach and Paul Meeh are examined in order to see how the originators, themselves, extended or altered their initial description of the framework.

Construct validity…is an important new concept which has immediate implications for both psychometrician and experimentalist. Most important is the increased emphasis which construct validity places upon the role of theory in the validation of psychological tests.

—Jessor and Hammond (1957, p. 161)

The renaming of the process of building a theory of behavior by the new term “construct validity” contributes nothing to the understanding of the process nor the usefulness of the concepts. The introduction into discussions of psychological theorizing of the aspects of construct validity discussed in some detail above creates, at best, unnecessary confusion and, at the worst, a nonempirical, nonscientific approach to the study of behavior.

—Bechtoldt (1959, p. 628)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurements Used in Education. (1955). Technical recommendations for achievement tests. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurements Used in Education. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2, Pt. 2), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtoldt, H. P. (1959). Construct validity: A critique. American Psychologist, 14, 619–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, G. (1951). The logic of psychological concepts. Philosophy of Science, 18, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, G. (1957). Philosophy of science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blinkhorn, S. F. (1997). Past imperfect, future conditional: Fifty years of test theory. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 50, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, D. R. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are score in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodbeck, M. (1957). The philosophy of science and educational research. Review of Educational Research, 27, 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1964). Validity and reliability: A proposed more basic set of concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. A. (1959). Developments and applications in the area of construct validity. Review of Educational Research, 29, 84–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy: Proceedings of a symposium in honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys (pp. 147–171). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity and psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1966). Mixed group validation: A method for determining the validity of diagnostic signs without using criterion groups. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 63–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. J., & Lykken, D. T. (1957). Individual differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 8, 79–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jessor, R., & Hammond, K. R. (1957). Construct validity and the Taylor Anxiety Scale. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 161–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. (1966). Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 3, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. B. (1968). An internal criterion of test validity. Psychological Reports, 22, 1145–1152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, M. S. (1967). The logic of theory testing with construct validated measures. The Journal of General Psychology, 77, 101–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawley, D. N. (1940). The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, A 60, 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawley, D. N. (1943). The application of the maximum likelihood method to factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 33, 172–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawley, D. N. (1944). The factorial analysis of multiple test items. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62 A, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawley, D. N. (1967). Some new results in maximum likelihood factor analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 67 A, 256–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1986). Diagnostic taxa as open concepts: Metatheoretical and statistical questions about reliability and construct validity in the grand strategy of nosological revision. In T. Millon & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology (pp. 215–231). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1989). Autobiography. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), History of psychology in autobiography (Vol. VIII, pp. 337–389). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. (2014). Validity in educational and psychological assessment. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peak, H. (1953). Problems of objective observation. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences (pp. 243–299). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Kathleen Slaney

Authors
  1. Kathleen Slaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen Slaney .

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slaney, K. (2017). Construct Validity: Developments and Debates. In: Validating Psychological Constructs. Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-38523-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation