Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nomological Nets

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2, Suppl.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, L. R. (2013). Commentary on “Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores”. Journal of Educational Measurement (Special Issue: Validity), 50, 74–83. doi:10.1111/jedm.12001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colliver, J. A., Conlee, M. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2012). From test validity to construct validity … and back? Medical Education in Review , 46, 366–371. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04194.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity: A universal validity system or just another test evaluation procedure? Educational Researcher, 36, 449–455. doi:10.3102/0013189X07311600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–18. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i04.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. doi:10.1111/jedm.12000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D. (2013). Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods, 18, 301–319. doi:10.1037/a0032969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428115624965. Published online before print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, K. (2012). On issues on validity and especially on the misery of convergent validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 249–254. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A. (2015). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428115598239. Published online before print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 5, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608–618. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Booth, T., & Bensch, D. (2013). Getting entangled in the nomological net. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 157–161. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Chair of Giftedness Research and Education, University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, 54286, Trier, Germany

    Franzis Preckel

  2. Berlin-Brandenburg Institute for School Quality, Free University of Berlin, Otto-von-Simson-Str. 15, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Brunner

Authors
  1. Franzis Preckel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franzis Preckel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oakland University, Rochester, USA

    Virgil Zeigler-Hill

  2. Oakland University, Rochester, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Humboldt University, Germany, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Preckel, F., Brunner, M. (2017). Nomological Nets. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1334-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1334-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28099-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28099-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation