Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Mar;16(2):435-442. doi: 10.1177/1745691621991860.
In a prior publication, I used structural equation modeling of multimethod data to examine the construct validity of Implicit Association Tests. The results showed no evidence that IATs measure implicit constructs (e.g., implicit self-esteem, implicit racial bias). This critique of IATs elicited several responses by implicit social-cognition researchers, who tried to defend the validity and usefulness of IATs. I carefully examine these arguments and show that they lack validity. IAT proponents consistently ignore or misrepresent facts that challenge the validity of IATs as measures of individual differences in implicit cognitions. One response suggests that IATs can be useful even if they merely measure the same constructs as self-report measures, but I find no support for the claim that IATs have practically significant incremental predictive validity. In conclusions, IATs are widely used without psychometric evidence of construct or predictive validity.
在之前的一篇论文中,我使用多方法数据的结构方程建模来检验内隐联想测验的建构效度。结果表明,内隐联想测验并不能测量内隐结构(例如,内隐自尊、内隐种族偏见)。这一对内隐联想测验的批评引起了一些内隐社会认知研究人员的回应,他们试图为内隐联想测验的有效性和有用性辩护。我仔细审查了这些论点,发现它们缺乏有效性。内隐联想测验的支持者一直忽视或歪曲那些挑战内隐联想测验作为个体内隐认知差异测量工具的有效性的事实。有一种回应认为,即使内隐联想测验仅仅测量与自我报告测量相同的构念,它们也可能是有用的,但我没有发现任何支持内隐联想测验具有实际显著增量预测效度的证据。总之,内隐联想测验在没有心理测量学建构或预测效度证据的情况下被广泛使用。