Construct validity is a cornerstone of psychological science.
But too often, construct validation practices fall short, leaving uncertainty about what our measures really capture.
Why is that?
We (with @stffmllr ) tackle this question in our new preprint:
🧵…
We encourage researchers to apply our six criteria to ensure that construct validation efforts produce informative, high-quality evidence that can genuinely clarify which theoretical constructs are captured by a psychometric measure.
Examining the role of personality functioning in a hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology using two years of ambulatory assessed data (N = 27,173). @AndrKerber1 et al. https://t.co/xecL28in5T
@R__INDEX In general, I think prediction is at its best when it aims to be (practically) useful, while explanation is at its best when it aims to be insightful. Though both can be either.