Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

CONTENT–CONSTRUCT CONFUSION

CONTENT–CONSTRUCT CONFUSION CONFUSION’ MARY L. TENOPYR American Telephone and Telegraph Company T H Econfusion between content validity and construct validity runs rampant in psychology today. Possibly nothing has highlighted this confusion so much as the various efforts to develop guidelines on test validation. For example, in the various drafts of the pending Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council U niform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures there appears a statement to the effect that content validity alone is not sufficient justification for tests intended to measure psychological processes. Yet are all tests not intended to measure processes or constructs? Is not, for example, the ability to type a construct? Standards f o r Educational and Psychological Tests (American Psychological Association, 1974) gives general definitions of various aspects of validity, but unfortunately, emphasizes the interrelatedness of the various aspects of validity-criterion-related, content, and construct and does not appear to draw the warranted distinctions among these aspects. Thus, there is inadequate professional guidance to which to refer when one wishes to compare the various aspects of validity. The distinction between criterion-related validity and the other aspects of validity is not so clear as one might wish. However, it appears t o be the distinction http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Personnel Psychology Wiley

CONTENT–CONSTRUCT CONFUSION

Personnel Psychology , Volume 30 (1) – Mar 1, 1977

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/content-construct-confusion-0h0fTN9juM
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0031-5826
eISSN
1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02320.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

CONFUSION’ MARY L. TENOPYR American Telephone and Telegraph Company T H Econfusion between content validity and construct validity runs rampant in psychology today. Possibly nothing has highlighted this confusion so much as the various efforts to develop guidelines on test validation. For example, in the various drafts of the pending Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council U niform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures there appears a statement to the effect that content validity alone is not sufficient justification for tests intended to measure psychological processes. Yet are all tests not intended to measure processes or constructs? Is not, for example, the ability to type a construct? Standards f o r Educational and Psychological Tests (American Psychological Association, 1974) gives general definitions of various aspects of validity, but unfortunately, emphasizes the interrelatedness of the various aspects of validity-criterion-related, content, and construct and does not appear to draw the warranted distinctions among these aspects. Thus, there is inadequate professional guidance to which to refer when one wishes to compare the various aspects of validity. The distinction between criterion-related validity and the other aspects of validity is not so clear as one might wish. However, it appears t o be the distinction

Journal

Personnel PsychologyWiley

Published: Mar 1, 1977

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month