Rosenzweig S, Adelman S
Dept. of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA.
J Pers Assess. 1977 Dec;41(6):578-88. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4106_1.
Projective and semiprojective techniques are both tools and tests. A schema for assessing the validity of projective devices is proposed: (1) Primary, consisting of (a) construct validity i.e., the soundness of the techniques vis-a-vis its underlying concepts; and (b) criterion-related validity, i.e., the concordance between tool results and specified external criteria. (2) Secondary, viz., pragmatic validity, i.e., the usefulness of the instrument in applied fields. Discussion then focuses on the construct validity of the conceptually-based, semiprojective Rosenzweig P-F Study. specifically the evidence on (a) the self-consistency of its conceptual dimensions; (b) the sequential. social development of the Types and Directions of Aggression; (c) levels of behavior elicited; (d) sensitivity to scorable changes after induced frustration: and (e) physiological correlates oft he aggression categories. In each of these areas evidence exists in support of the validity of the P-F Study.
投射技术和半投射技术既是工具也是测试方法。本文提出了一种评估投射工具有效性的模式：（1）主要方面，包括（a）结构效度，即该技术相对于其潜在概念的合理性；以及（b）与标准相关的效度，即工具结果与特定外部标准之间的一致性。（2）次要方面，即实用效度，即该工具在应用领域的有用性。然后讨论聚焦于基于概念的半投射式罗森茨威格P-F研究的结构效度。具体而言，是关于以下方面的证据：（a）其概念维度的自我一致性；（b）攻击类型和方向的顺序性社会发展；（c）引发的行为水平；（d）诱导挫折后对可计分变化的敏感性；以及（e）攻击类别与生理的相关性。在这些领域中的每一个都有证据支持P-F研究的有效性。
