Kruglanski A W, Atash M N, DeGrada E, Mannetti L, Pierro A, Webster D M
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park 20742-4411, USA.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Nov;73(5):1005-16; discussion 1017-29. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.1005.
S. L. Neuberg, T. N. Judice, and S. G. West (1997) faulted our work with the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) on grounds that the NFCS lacks discriminant validity relative to S. L. Neuberg's and J. T. Newsom's (1993) Personal Need for Structure (PNS) Scale and is multidimensional, which, so they claim, renders the use of its total score inadmissible. By contrast, the present authors show that neither of the above assertions is incompatible with the underlying need for closure theory. Relations between NFCS and the PNS are to be expected, as these were designed to operationalize the very same construct (of need for closure). Furthermore, no unidimensionality of the NFCS has been claimed, and none is required to use its total score for testing various theoretically derived predictions. An instrument's ultimate utility hinges on theoretical considerations and empirical evidence rather than on questionable psychometric dogma unrelated to the substantive matters at hand.
S. L. 纽伯格、T. N. 朱迪斯和S. G. 韦斯特（1997年）对我们使用闭合需求量表（NFCS）的研究提出了质疑，理由是相对于S. L. 纽伯格和J. T. 纽瑟姆（1993年）的个人结构需求（PNS）量表，NFCS缺乏区分效度，而且是多维的，他们声称这使得使用其总分不可取。相比之下，本文作者表明上述两个断言都与潜在的闭合需求理论并不矛盾。NFCS和PNS之间的关系是可以预期的，因为它们旨在将完全相同的结构（闭合需求）进行操作化。此外，并未宣称NFCS是单维的，而且使用其总分来检验各种理论推导的预测也不需要它是单维的。一种工具的最终效用取决于理论考量和实证证据，而不是取决于与手头实质问题无关的可疑心理测量教条。
