Blötner Christian
Faculty of Psychology, Chair of Personality, Legal Psychology and Assessment, Universitätsstr. 37, 58084, Hagen, Germany.
Behav Res Methods. 2025 May 19;57(6):177. doi: 10.3758/s13428-025-02691-6.
The existence of jingle fallacies (equally named constructs/measures that, in fact, assess different constructs) and jangle fallacies (differently named constructs/measures that, in fact, measure the same concept) jeopardizes psychological assessment, as both are associated with conceptual and assessment-related uncertainties. A guideline presented by Lawson and Robins Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25, 344-366, (2021) helps evaluate the intensity of respective fallacies. While the guideline is well elaborated, psychometric aspects regarding (dis)similarities of nomological networks require extensions and differentiations. I recommend two analytical advancements, namely (a) the derivation of correlation difference hypotheses for criteria with which the allegedly jingled (jangled) variables are assumed to be correlated at equal (different) levels and (b) procedures to derive cutoffs for the overall similarity of nomological networks based on the elemental approach (Kay & Arrow Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16, e12662, 2022). Considering correlation difference tests, I further outline the importance of power analyses. These extensions help improve the evaluation of assumed jingle and jangle fallacies, arguably increasing the stability and reliability of research findings.
“叮当谬误”（即实际上评估不同构念的同名构念/测量方法）和“混淆谬误”（即实际上测量相同概念的异名构念/测量方法）的存在危及心理评估，因为这两者都与概念及评估相关的不确定性有关。劳森和罗宾斯在《人格与社会心理学评论》2021年第25卷第344 - 366页提出的一项指南有助于评估各自谬误的严重程度。虽然该指南阐述得很详尽，但关于法则网络（不）相似性的心理测量学方面需要扩展和区分。我推荐两项分析进展，即（a）推导相关差异假设，用于那些据称“叮当”（“混淆”）的变量被假定在相同（不同）水平上相关的标准，以及（b）基于元素法（凯和阿罗，《社会与人格心理学指南》，2022年第16卷，e12662）推导法则网络整体相似性临界值的程序。考虑到相关差异检验，我进一步概述了功效分析的重要性。这些扩展有助于改进对假定的“叮当”和“混淆”谬误的评估，从而可以提高研究结果的稳定性和可靠性。
