Talk:Construct validity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Example
I removed "Example: Intelligence" not because it isn't a good example, but because it needs some context. -Nicktalk 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some problems
1. I am not familiar with the rebellion against the "operationist past," and this does not sound neutral to me.
2. Given that I'm not familiar with the arguments behind this view, I'm reluctant to change the article, but it makes more sense to me to say that "construct validity refers to whether an OPERATIONALIZATION CAPTURES the unobservable (THAT IS, THEORETICAL) social construct ..." Certainly construct validity is not specifically about SCALES.
3. The phrase "unobservable idea of a unidimensional easier-to-harder dimension" confuses conceptualization and measurement. The "unobservable idea" is not the "unidimensional easier-to-harder" response scale that's used to measure it.
4. I have only a vague idea what this means: "A construct is not restricted to one set of observable indicators or attributes. It is common to a number of sets of indicators." Does this actually mean the reverse--that indicators are not unique to a specific construct? What's the point of bringing this up unless you're also going to talk about convergent and discriminant validity?
5. This is, I think, incorrect: 'Thus, "construct validity" can be evaluated by statistical methods that show whether or not a common factor can be shown to exist underlying several measurements using different observable indicators.' All the factor analysis shows is that the indicators "go together". It's an indicator of convergent validity without a test for discriminant validity, predictive validity, or concurrent validity.
6. This is both underdeveloped and contentious: "This view of a construct rejects the operationist past that a construct is neither more nor less than the operations used to measure it." I don't know anyone who thinks that the construct IS the operationalization, but I also don't see how using factor analysis to measure construct validity buys you anything interesting.
Somewhat Agree 08:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
