From test validity to construct validity … and back?

On Issues of Validity and Especially on the Misery of Convergent Validity

Cronbach and Meehl (1955) introduced the concept of construct validity and described how researchers can demonstrate that their measures have construct validity. Although the term construct validity is widely used, few researchers follow Cronbach and Meehl’s recommendation to quantify construct validity with the help of nomological networks. As a result, the construct validity of many popular measures in psychology is unknown. I call for rigorous tests of construct validity that follow Cronbach and Meehl’s recommendations to improve psychology as a science. Without valid measures even replicable results are uninformative. I suggest that a proper program of validation research requires a multi-method approach and causal modeling of correlations with structural equation models. Construct validity should be quantified to enable cost-benefit analyses and to replace existing measures with better measures that have superior construct validity.

This reply to Conway et al. (2025) illustrates how points of contention in the evaluation of mindreading (or theory of mind) measures can arise from the use of divergent validity concepts. The construct validity model used in Wendt et al.'s (2024) empirical study contrasts with the perspective implicit in Conway and colleagues' commentary, which is more consistent with Lennon's (1956) content validity model. This is reflected in the authors' conception of the nature of what is to be measured (i.e., the measurand), the criterion for what makes a measure superior (i.e., validity), and the proposed methods for judging this (i.e., validation). The mismatch between the validity concepts adopted by the respective authors has three major implications: First, Conway and colleagues' critique does not fully address the specific goals, assumptions, and intricacies of construct validation methodology. Second, their approach to measuring mindreading should not be confused with, or considered as an alternative to, construct validation but is valuable in its own right. Third, the two validity frameworks mentioned offer unique opportunities for different phases of the research process. While a content validity approach can be valuable for describing an empirical phenomenon that seems worthy of explanation (e.g., real-world mindreading), a construct validity approach can identify the theoretical constructs that might help explain it (e.g., mindreading ability). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

The Spanish version of the five-item Francis scale of attitude toward Christianity is a refinement of the short version of the Francis scale of attitude toward Christianity. The scale is a good measurement for intrinsic religiosity. It has been applied previously among Colombian adolescent students. The internal consistency and construct and nomological validity were tested among a sample of 1349 Colombian college students from Santa Marta, Colombia. Participants were aged between 18- and 30-years-old; 51% were men; and 68% were social science students. Exploratory analysis factor, Cronbach alpha and omega McDonald were computed. The scale showed high internal consistency (both alpha and omega = .96) and excellent construct and nomological validity (one factor which explained for 88% of variance; women scored higher than men; and Protestants scored higher than Catholics and students with other religion filiations). The five-item Francis scale can be used further researches in Hispano-America among college students.

A healthy lifestyle is fundamental for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Investment in primary prevention, including modification of health risk behaviors, could result in a 4-fold improvement in health outcomes compared with secondary prevention based on pharmacological treatment. The American Heart Association (AHA) emphasized the importance of lifestyle in its 2020 goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction. In addition to defining “cardiovascular health” based on criteria for blood pressure and biochemical markers (lipids and glycemia), the AHA Strategic Planning Committee further identified lifestyle characteristics of central importance: nutrition, physical activity, smoking, and maintenance of a healthy body weight.1 The World Health Organization estimated that ≈80% of NCDs could be prevented if 4 key lifestyle practices were followed: a healthy diet, being physically active, avoidance of tobacco, and alcohol intake in moderation.2 To support healthy lifestyle initiatives, major changes are necessary at the societal level to improve population health. Numerous strategies might help to create a culture that promotes and facilitates healthy behaviors, including creating laws and regulations, mounting large-scale public awareness and education campaigns, implementing local community programs, and providing individual counseling.3 Physicians are uniquely positioned to encourage individuals to adopt healthy lifestyle behaviors: Approximately 80% of Americans visit their primary care physician at least once a year. Physicians directly communicate with their patients during clinical encounters across numerous settings, and research indicates that patients highly value recommendations provided by their physicians.4,5 However, data further indicate that lifestyle counseling does not routinely occur in physicians’ offices, thereby representing a lost opportunity. Physicians report that they perform lifestyle counseling during ≈34% of clinic visits.4 Patients, in turn, report an even lower frequency of physician lifestyle counseling. For example, obese patients reported receiving physical activity and …

Construct Validation for a Nonlinear Measurement Model in Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research

Medical students' preparedness for clinical practice is well researched, yet little is known on the extent to which students are being prepared for a medical career. This paper reports the construction of a short medical inventory titled eXploring medical sTudents' caReer reAdiness (XTRA) to measure students' career readiness based on Super's theory of career maturity. We designed an instrument consisting of a series of 5-point Likert-scale to identify participants competencies regarding career exploration and planning during their undergraduate studies. The instrument was completed by 348 medical students from 41 universities in the United Kingdom. We examined the validity and reliability of the instrument through Exploratory Factor Analysis, Cronbach's coefficient α and Pearson correlation. Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed that 16 of the 20-items survey were aligned with the exploration stage of Super's theory: Crystallisation (Career goals), Specification (Career pathways) and Implementation (Career accomplishments). The four items that formed two separate statistical factors were specific to a current medical career in the UK. Internal reliability for Super's factor subscales were acceptable (α = 0.71 to α = 0.81). A significant positive relationship was found between students' overall rating of career readiness and the three factors, indicating construct validity. The XTRA Inventory is a short instrument with construct and content validity specifically designed to measure career readiness of medical students. Further work on its psychometric properties will help establish this inventory to be used as a guidance and career counselling tool by medical educators and educational institutions in developing career development programmes.

What’s Next for Somatic Symptom Disorder?

Three theoretical models have been proposed to represent self-concept: (a) unidimensional; (b) multidimensional; (c) multidimensional hierarchical. Inventories have been developed under each of the three competing theoretical models; which model best represents self-concept is unclear. Typically, self-concept construct validation has utilized various approaches including correlational, multitrait-multimethod, and factor analytic methods. Another method, however, for assessing validity would be to determine the consequences of score interpretations using different measures specific to each of the theoretical models. This paper examined Messick's notion (1989) of the validity of test-score interpretations as applied to three of the most widely used measures derived under each of the three different theoretical models of self-concept. Results suggest that overall multidimensional measures are more consistent in classifying individual's self-concept than unidimensional measures.

Construct validity is one of the most central concepts in psychology. Researchers generally establish the construct validity of a measure by correlating it with a number of other measures and arguing from the pattern of correlations that the measure is associated with these variables in theoretically predictable ways. This article presents 2 simple metrics for quantifying construct validity that provide effect size estimates indicating the extent to which the observed pattem of correlations in a convergent-discriminant validity matrix matches the theoretically predicted pattern of correlations. Both measures, based on contrast analysis, provide simple estimates of validity that can be compared across studies, constructs, and measures meta-analytically, and can be implemented without the use of complex statistical procedures that may limit their accessibility.

PurposeResearch serves to elucidate and tackle real-world issues (e.g. capitalizing opportunities and solving problems). Critical to research is the concept of validity, which gauges the extent to which research is adequate and appropriate in representing what it intends to measure and test. In this vein, this article aims to present a typology of validity to aid researchers in this endeavor.Design/methodology/approachEmploying a synthesis approach informed by the 3Es of expertise, experience, and exposure, this article maintains a sharp focus on delineating the concept of validity and presenting its typology.FindingsThis article emphasizes the importance of validity and explains how and when different types of validity can be established. First and foremost, content validity and face validity are prerequisites assessed before data collection, whereas convergent validity and discriminant validity come into play during the evaluation of the measurement model post-data collection, while nomological validity and predictive validity are crucial in the evaluation of the structural model following the evaluation of the measurement model. Additionally, content, face, convergent and discriminant validity contribute to construct validity as they pertain to concept(s), while nomological and predictive validity contribute to criterion validity as they relate to relationship(s). Last but not least, content and face validity are established by humans, thereby contributing to the assessment of substantive significance, whereas convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity are established by statistics, thereby contributing to the assessment of statistical significance.Originality/valueThis article contributes to a deeper understanding of validity’s multifaceted nature in research, providing a practical guide for its application across various research stages.

Research indicates that perceived behavioral control (PBC) is an important determinant of behavior and that it is composed of perceived capability and opportunity. However, typical measurement of these constructs may be confounded with motivation and outcome expectations. Vignettes presented before questionnaire items may clarify construct meaning leading to precise measurement. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate measures of perceived capability and opportunity that parse these constructs from the influence of motivation and outcome expectations using vignettes. Study 1 collected feedback from experts (N = 9) about the initial measure. Study 2a explored internal consistency reliability and construct and discriminant validity of the revised measure using two independent samples (N = 683 and N = 727). Finally, using a prospective design, Study 2b (N = 1,410) investigated test-retest reliability, construct and discriminant validity at Time 2, and nomological validity. After Study 1, the revised measure was tested in Studies 2a and 2b. Overall, the evidence suggests that the measure is optimal with four items for perceived capability and three for the perceived opportunity. The measure demonstrated strong internal consistency ( > 0.90) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] > .78). The measure also showed construct and discriminant validity by differentiating itself from behavioral intentions (i.e., motivation) and affective attitude (based on expected outcomes) (SRMR = 0.03; RMSEA = 0.06). It also demonstrated evidence of nomological validity as behavior 2 weeks later was predicted. We recommend researchers use this tool in future correlational and intervention studies to parse motivation and outcome expectations from perceived capability and opportunity measurement.

The H & H Lactation (H & H) scale is a useful instrument for understanding mothers' perceptions of insufficient milk supply, which is the common reason given for premature cessation of breastfeeding. This instrument may be used to intervene in postbirth dropoff in breastfeeding among mothers. To examine construct and nomological validity and related psychometric evidence for the translated H & H scale using a repeated measurement design in a sample of Thai mothers. A repeated measurement design with 196 mother-infant dyads. Data were collected at two time periods. At Time 1, data on the H & H and Index of Breastfeeding Status (IBS) scales were obtained between 36 and 48 hr postbirth. For Time 2, the same mothers completed the same instruments at 1 month postbirth. Psychometricproperties of the H & H scale were examined using convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity principles with instructural equation modeling. Based on judgment/classification task, exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis, and cross-validation using multisample analysis, only nine items of the H & H scale measured at Time 1 and Time 2 were found to be psychometrically sound for measuring insufficient milk supply for Thai mothers. An analysis of the influence of the nine-item of the H & H scale measured at Time 1 and Time 2 on the IBS measured at Time 2 showed that (a) the direct effects of two subscales of the H & H scale measured at Time 2 on the IBS were significant and positive, providing support for the nomological validity of the H & H scale; (b) each H& H factor at Time 1 had a significant influence on its corresponding factor at Time 2, supporting convergent validity; and (c) the crossover effects for each H & H factor for Time 1 and Time 2 data were nonsignificant, indicating discriminant validity. Overall, the 20-item H & H scale appears to be unreliable and invalid for measuring the concept of insufficient milk supply in cross-cultural studies. However, the short form of nine items is reliable and valid for Thai mothers. Further testing and development of the H & H scale and the proposed short form in other cultures and contexts is warranted.

Intercultural development in global employees will aid organizations to function successfully in the current global work scene. However, there is a need for a psychometrically valid and reliable measure, which can be used by practitioners and academics to assess the capabilities of individuals. This vignette based intercultural development scale was conceived on the basis of Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. The content was generated using interviews with international employees and subject matter experts. Psychometric properties were established with both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A sample of 461 international employees was used to test the validity of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis and construct validity was established with cosmopolitanism and openness to experience scales. The study confirms the scale’s dimensionality and established convergent, discriminant and nomological validity. The applications of this scale in building capabilities, talent management and strategic decisions in both practical and theoretical assessment are outlined.

Scholars, the business press, practitioners, and business school curricula have long emphasized the importance of ‘managing your boss’ (MYB) as an important driver of employee effectiveness in organizations. Empirical research on this topic, however, has been stymied by the lack of a validated measure of ‘managing your boss’ behaviors. This paper first reviews the literature on the topic to develop a constitutive definition of MYB. Then, using this definition, we systematically develop a MYB measure necessary for testing theory about its origins and outcomes. Six studies then provide evidence evaluating its psychometric properties and construct validity. In the first two studies, we refine and develop a 10-item measure of MYB and provide evidence about its reliability and factor structure. The remaining four studies provide evidence about the construct’s convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Doing so, we establish the distinctiveness of MYB from related constructs and demonstrate its relationships with the previously theorized nomological network.