Construct Validity In Psychology Research

What is Construct Validity?

Construct validity refers to the degree to which a psychological test or assessment measures the abstract concept or psychological construct that it purports to measure.

It involves both the theoretical relationship between a test and the construct it claims to measure, as well as the empirical evidence that the test measures that construct.

For instance, if a researcher develops a new questionnaire to evaluate aggression, the instrument’s construct validity would be the extent to which it assesses aggression as opposed to assertiveness, social dominance, and so on.

Establishing construct validity involves examining multiple aspects. It looks at the relationships between test scores and external variables, such as other measures of the same concept.

Additionally, it focuses on the underlying latent construct or factor, going beyond merely checking that a test contains an appropriate sample of items (content validity).

It requires a thorough understanding of the construct being measured and a robust process of gathering evidence from multiple sources to support the interpretations and uses of test scores.

Construct validity is a matter of degree, not all or none, and it should be viewed as a continuum rather than a determination that a measure simply is or is not valid.

The implications of construct validity can be understood on this continuum:

High construct validity means there is substantial theoretical and empirical evidence that a test measures the intended construct, while low construct validity implies the test may be measuring something else unintended or that score interpretations are questionable.

How to assess construct validity

Assessing construct validity involves a multifaceted process of gathering evidence to support the claim that a test or measure accurately reflects the intended psychological construct.

This process goes beyond simply demonstrating that a test predicts a specific outcome and requires a deeper understanding of the construct being measured, its theoretical underpinnings, and its relationships with other variables.

Construct validity is not established through a single study but rather through a continuous accumulation of evidence from multiple sources.

This involves ongoing research, refinement of the theoretical framework, and continuous evaluation of the test’s performance in different contexts.

Clearly articulate a theory of the construct:

This involves specifying the construct’s definition, key components, and expected relationships with other variables.

This theoretical framework, often referred to as the “nomological network,” serves as a roadmap for guiding the validation process.

Investigate content validity:

This step focuses on ensuring the test items comprehensively represent the construct’s domain.

This can involve consulting experts to judge item relevance, reviewing established definitions or criteria, and examining the overall balance and coverage of the content.

Gather criterion-related validity evidence:

This involves examining the test’s relationships with external criteria that are theoretically linked to the construct.

• Concurrent validity is assessed by comparing test scores with a criterion measured at the same time (e.g., comparing scores on a new anxiety measure with scores on an established anxiety measure).
• Predictive validity is assessed by examining whether test scores predict future performance on a relevant criterion (e.g., whether scores on a college admissions test predict academic success in college).

Assess convergent and discriminant validity:

• Convergent validity is demonstrated when the test correlates positively with measures of similar or related constructs. For example, a new depression scale should correlate highly with existing validated depression measures.
• Discriminant validity is demonstrated when the test shows weak or no correlations with measures of unrelated constructs, ensuring that it is not measuring something else entirely.

Explore nomological validity:

Nomological validity examines whether a test relates to other variables as predicted by theory

This involves examining the test’s relationships with a wider network of constructs related to the target construct.

This might involve testing complex patterns of relationships using techniques like structural equation modeling, helping to situate the construct within a broader theoretical framework.

Example: A measure of anxiety should predict performance decrements under stress.

Consider construct representation:

This aspect focuses on understanding the specific mechanisms and processes that underlie test performance.

Researchers might use methods like cognitive interviews or think-aloud protocols to gain insights into how individuals approach and solve test items, providing a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes involved in responding to the test.

Examples of construct validity

Construct validity is not a single entity that can be demonstrated definitively.

Instead, it is a multifaceted concept supported by a convergence of evidence from various sources and research methods.

The goal is to build a compelling case that a test truly measures the intended psychological construct.

Here are several examples illustrating different aspects of construct validity and how researchers might gather evidence to support their claims:

1. Measuring Intelligence: A Classic Example

Imagine researchers developing a new intelligence test. To establish its construct validity, they would likely employ a combination of the following approaches:

Content Validity

The test items should comprehensively sample the different cognitive abilities associated with intelligence, such as verbal reasoning, spatial visualization, and working memory.

The researchers could consult existing theories of intelligence and expert opinions to ensure the items adequately represent the defined construct.

Criterion-Related Validity

• Concurrent Validity: Researchers might administer the new intelligence test alongside an established intelligence test like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) to a group of participants. A strong positive correlation between scores on the two tests would support the concurrent validity of the new test.
• Predictive Validity: They might also investigate whether scores on the new test predict academic performance, job success, or other outcomes theoretically linked to intelligence. If the test successfully predicts these outcomes, this would support its predictive validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

• Convergent Validity: The researchers would expect the new intelligence test to correlate positively with measures of related constructs, such as problem-solving ability, critical thinking skills, and academic achievement.
• Discriminant Validity: Conversely, they would expect weak or no correlations with measures of unrelated constructs like personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness) or physical abilities. This helps ensure the test is measuring intelligence specifically and not other, potentially confounding factors.

Nomological Validity

Researchers could investigate the test scores’ relationships with a broader network of constructs associated with intelligence.

For example, they might expect individuals scoring high on the intelligence test to also perform well on tasks involving abstract reasoning, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence, as these are all conceptually related to the overarching construct of intelligence.

2. Assessing Depression: The Importance of Multiple Methods

Consider researchers developing a new self-report measure of depression. To establish its construct validity, they might:

Content Validity

Ensure the questionnaire items comprehensively address the various symptoms of depression, such as depressed mood, loss of interest, sleep disturbances, and feelings of worthlessness.

They might consult the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) or other established diagnostic criteria to ensure adequate content coverage.

Criterion-Related Validity

• Concurrent Validity: The researchers could administer the new depression measure along with a structured clinical interview, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing depression, to assess the agreement between the two methods.
• Predictive Validity: They could examine whether scores on the new measure predict future mental health service utilization or other relevant outcomes associated with depression.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

• Convergent Validity: Researchers might expect moderate correlations between the new depression measure and existing self-report measures of depression, as well as measures of related constructs like anxiety or negative affect.
• Discriminant Validity: However, they would expect weaker or no correlations with measures of unrelated constructs like physical health or positive affect. This helps differentiate depression from other psychological states that might share some overlapping symptoms.

Trait Validity

Researchers could expand their assessment of convergent validity by using multiple methods to measure depression.

For instance, in addition to self-report, they could collect data from clinician ratings, behavioral observations, or physiological measures.

Strong convergence across these different methods would strengthen the evidence for the trait validity of the depression measure, indicating it captures a consistent and meaningful construct of depression that transcends specific measurement methods.

3. Evaluating a Social Skills Training Program: Focusing on Construct Representation

Imagine researchers evaluating the effectiveness of a new social skills training program for adolescents. They might:

Construct Representation

To understand how the program works, the researchers might focus on identifying the specific skills and cognitive processes targeted by the training.

For example, they might assess changes in participants’ abilities to initiate conversations, interpret social cues, or manage anxiety in social situations.

This detailed understanding of the program’s mechanisms and targeted processes provides valuable insights into its construct representation.

Nomothetic Span

The researchers would also examine the relationship between program participation and a range of outcomes.

This might include changes in social behavior (observed interactions, peer ratings), social anxiety levels, and overall well-being.

Key Points to Remember about Construct Validity

• It’s an Ongoing Process: Establishing construct validity is not a one-time event but rather a continuous process of gathering evidence and refining our understanding of the construct.
• Multiple Sources of Evidence Are Crucial: No single piece of evidence is definitive. Instead, researchers must integrate findings from multiple sources, using a variety of methods, to build a compelling argument for a test’s construct validity.
• Theory Plays a Central Role: Construct validity is inherently tied to theory. The development and validation of a measure require a clear theoretical understanding of the construct being measured, as well as testable hypotheses about its relationships with other variables.

By carefully considering all aspects of construct validity, researchers and practitioners can develop and use tests that provide meaningful and actionable insights into human behavior.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.D.) Construct Validity. American Psychological Association Dictionary

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281.

Fink, A. (2010). Survey Research Methods. In Peterson, P. L., Baker, E., & McGaw, B. (2010). International encyclopedia of education. Elsevier Ltd.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570. 1975.tb01393.x

Lawshe, C. H. (1985). Inferences from personnel tests and their validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 237.

Lievens, F. (1998). Factors which improve the construct validity of assessment centers: A review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(3), 141-152.

Phye, G. D., Saklofske, D. H., Andrews, J. J., & Janzen, H. L. (2001). Handbook of Psychoeducational Assessment: A Practical Handbook A Volume in the EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Series. Elsevier.

Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological assessment, 17(4), 396.