Westen Drew, Rosenthal Robert
Department of Psychology, Emory University, 532 Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30309, USA.
Psychol Assess. 2005 Dec;17(4):409-12. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.409.
Smith's article "On Construct Validity: Issues of Method and Measurement" is a fine tribute to L. J. Cronbach and P. E. Meehl (1955) that clarifies the current state and future directions in the understanding of construct validity. Construct validity is a dynamic process, and fit indices need to be used at the service of understanding, not in place of it. The failure of a study or set of studies to support a construct, a measure, or the theory underlying it admits of many explanations, and the ways scientists interpret such failures are prone to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning. This suggests why metrics designed to index the extent to which observations match expectations can be useful prostheses to scientific judgments. As P. E. Meehl (1954) showed decades ago, quantitative, statistical formulas and indices tend to outperform informal, qualitative judgments, and this applies as much to the way researchers evaluate constructs and measures as to judgments in the consulting room.
史密斯的文章《论构想效度:方法与测量问题》是对L. J. 克龙巴赫和P. E. 米尔(1955年)的精彩致敬,它阐明了当前在理解构想效度方面的现状和未来方向。构想效度是一个动态过程,拟合指数需要用于促进理解,而不是取而代之。一项研究或一系列研究未能支持一种构想、一种测量方法或其背后的理论,原因有很多,科学家解释此类失败的方式容易出现认知偏差和动机性推理。这表明了为什么旨在衡量观察结果与预期相符程度的指标可以成为科学判断的有用辅助工具。正如P. E. 米尔在几十年前所表明的那样,定量的统计公式和指数往往优于非正式的定性判断,这在研究人员评估构想和测量方法的方式以及在咨询室中的判断中同样适用。