Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T21:35:49.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Construct Validation Valid?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Anna Alexandrova  and
Daniel M. Haybron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What makes a measure of well-being valid? The dominant approach today, construct validation, uses psychometrics to ensure that questionnaires behave in accordance with background knowledge. Our first claim is interpretive—construct validation obeys a coherentist logic that seeks to balance diverse sources of evidence about the construct in question. Our second claim is critical—while in theory this logic is defensible, in practice it does not secure valid measures. We argue that the practice of construct validation in well-being research is theory avoidant, favoring a narrow focus on statistical tests while largely ignoring relevant philosophical considerations.

Type
Measuring What?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 1098 - 1109
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The authors are equally and jointly responsible for the contents. They thank the anonymous referees, Valerie Tiberius, Colin DeYoung, and Elina Vessonen for valuable comments.

References

Angner, Erik. 2009. “Subjective Measures of Well-Being: Philosophical Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, ed. Kincaid, Harold and Ross, Don, 560–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, and Bradburn, Norman. 2011. “A Theory of Measurement.” In The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: Proceedings of the National Research Council Committee on Common Metrics, 53–70. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J., and Meehl, Paul E.. 1955. “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests.” Psychological Bulletin 52 (4): 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vet, Henrica C. W., Terwee, Caroline B., Mokkink, Lidwine B., and Knol, Dirk L.. 2011. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, Ed, Emmons, Robert A., Larsen, Randy J., and Griffin, Sharon. 1985. “The Satisfaction with Life Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment 49 (1): 71–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, Ed, Lucas, Richard E., Schimmack, Ulrich, and Helliwell, John. 2008. Well-Being for Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diener, Ed, Ng, Weiting, Harter, James, and Arora, Raksha. 2010. “Wealth and Happiness across the World: Material Prosperity Predicts Life Evaluation, Whereas Psychosocial Prosperity Predicts Positive Feeling.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (1): 52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haybron, Daniel. M. 2008. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haybron, Daniel. M. 2013. Happiness: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helliwell, John, Layard, Richard, and Sachs, Jeffrey. 2012. World Happiness Report. Columbia University: Earth Institute.Google Scholar
Hunt, Sonja M., McKenna, S. P., McEwen, J., Williams, Jan, and Papp, Evelyn. 1981. “The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective Health Status and Medical Consultations.” Social Science and Medicine. Part A: Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology 15 (3): 221–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Krantz, David, Luce, Duncan, Suppes, Patrick, and Tversky, Amos. 1971. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 1, Additive and Polynomial Representations. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Lykken, David, and Tellegen, Auke. 1996. “Happiness Is a Stochastic Phenomenon.” Psychological Science 7 (3): 186–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawilowsky, Shlomo. 2007. “Construct Validity.” In Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, ed. Salkind, Neil J. and Rasmussen, K., 179–82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schneider, Leann, and Schimmack, Ulrich. 2009. “Self-Informant Agreement in Well-Being Ratings: A Meta-analysis.” Social Indicators Research 94 (3): 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simms, Leonard J. 2008. “Classical and Modern Methods of Psychological Scale Construction.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (1): 414–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Milton E., and Smith, Gregory T.. 2009. “Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tal, Eran. 2013. “Old and New Problems in Philosophy of Measurement.” Philosophy Compass 8 (12): 1159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. C. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, David, Clark, Lee A., and Tellegen, Auke. 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (6): 1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed