Advertisement

The Introduction of Construct Validity to the Assessment Field: An Historical Analysis

  • T. B. Rogers
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Summary

Construct validity was introduced into the field of psychological assessment during the mid 1950s in response to several pressing problems. This type of validity formalized the requirement that psychological tests be considered instruments of psychological theory. The historical record was reviewed to reveal that the concept was introduced with no formal, open debate. Critical analysis of the idea arrived only after the concept had gained considerable popularity. Despite some telling criticisms, as well as some significant changes in the discipline since the mid ‘50s, the concept has remained ascendant in the field. It is suggested that this resilience reflects the strength of several metatheoretic assumptions of the field, and that some of the problems plaguing contemporary personality assessment can be traced to the uncritical adoption of the concept of construct validity.

Keywords

Construct Validity Psychological Theory Psychological Test Personality Test Open Debate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychological Association (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 201–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtoldt, H. P. (1959). Construct validity: A critique. American Psychologist, 14, 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1953). The interpretation of physics. In H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 309–318 ). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, C. A. (1959). Developments and applications in the area of construct validity. Review of Educational Research, 29, 84–105.Google Scholar
  5. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Recommendations for APA Test Standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gergen, K. J. (1987). The language of psychological understanding. In H. Stam, T. B. Rogers & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The analysis of psychological theory: Metapsychological perspectives (pp. 115–130 ). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, D. N. (1973). Structured personality assessment. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of general psychology (pp. 775–792 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Kornhauser, A. (1945). Replies of psychologists to a short questionnaire on mental test developments, personality inventories, and the Rorschach test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Leahey, T. H. (1980). The myth of operationism. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1, 127–143.Google Scholar
  12. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.Google Scholar
  13. Meehl, P. H. (1945). The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–303.Google Scholar
  14. Meehi, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morawski, J. G. (1987). After reflection: Psychologists’ uses of history. In H. Stam, T. B. Rogers & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The analysis of psychological theory: Metapsychological perspectives (pp. 157–174 ). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  16. Mosier, C. I. (1938). On the validity of neurotic questionnaires. Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rorer, L. G., & Widiger, T. A. (1983). Personality structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ross, C. C. (1936). A needed emphasis in psychological research. Psychological Review, 43, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarbin, T. R. (1968). Ontology recapitulates philology: The mythic nature of anxiety. American Psychologist, 23, 411–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson, G. (1938). Personality and character measurement. Review of Educational Research, 8, 269–291 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. B. Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations