Definition
Validity refers to the degree to which (empirical) evidence and theory support the interpretation(s) of test scores for the intended uses of those or the degree to which empirical evidence and theory support the interpretation of results derived from experiments.
Introduction
Within psychology, the concept of validity is used in two different yet related areas. First, validity is an important aspect of the psychometric quality of scores derived from diagnostic measures (e.g., psychological tests, questionnaires, interviews, and behavior observations). Second, validity is also used to gauge the quality of result interpretations of psychological experiments. The definition presented above is based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA and APA 2014) but extents it in order to also accommodate the second area where validity is relevant, i.e., experiments.
Validity in Psychological Experiments
In psychology, experiments are used with the aim of testing...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
AERA, & APA. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association & American Psychological Association.
AERA, APA, & NMCE. (2014). Standards for educational & psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association & American Psychological Association.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/111/4/1061.pdf.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Jounal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J., & Fox, H. C. (2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later life: Following up the Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 130.
EFPA Board of Assessment. (2013). EFPA review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association & American Psychological Association
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
Koch, T., Holtmann, J., Bohn, J., & Eid, M. (2017). Multitrait-multimethod analysis. In Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer.
Krumm, S., Lievens, F., Hüffmeier, J., Lipnevich, A. A., Bendels, H., & Hertel, G. (2015). How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037674.
Krumm, S., Hüffmeier, J., & Lievens, F. (2017) Experimental test validation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Advance on, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000393.
Kunina-Habenicht, O., Rupp, A. A., & Wilhelm, O. (2009). A practical illustration of multidimensional diagnostic skills profiling: Comparing results from confirmatory factor analysis and diagnostic classification models. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2–3), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.003.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory: Monograph supplement 9. Psychological Reports, 3(3), 635–694.
Maaß, U., & Ziegler, M. (2017). Narcissistic self-promotion is not moderated by the strength of situational cues. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 482–488.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018002005.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.014.
Poropat, A. E. (2014). Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications. Learning and Individual Differences, 34(0), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.013.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x.
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419–450.
Whalley, L. J., Fox, H. C., Deary, I. J., & Starr, J. M. (2005). Childhood IQ, smoking, and cognitive change from age 11 to 64 years. Addictive Behaviors, 30(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.04.014.
Yalch, M. M., & Hopwood, C. J. (2016). Target-, informant-, and meta-perceptual ratings of maladaptive traits. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000417.
Ziegler, M. (2014). Stop and state your intentions!: Let’s not forget the ABC of test construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000228.
Ziegler, M., & Bäckström, M. (2016). 50 facets of a trait – 50 ways to mess up? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000372.
Ziegler, M., & Brunner, M. (2016). Test standards and psychometric modeling. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century (pp. 29–55). Göttingen: Springer.
Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Lenzner, T. (2015). The issue of fuzzy concepts in test construction and possible remedies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000255.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Ziegler, M., Lämmle, L. (2020). Validity. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1354
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1354
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24610-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24612-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences