What kind of validity requires that a researcher uses two different measures of the same construct quizlet?

Recommended textbook solutions

Myers' Psychology for the AP Course

3rd EditionC. Nathan DeWall, David G Myers

955 solutions

Social Psychology

10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson

525 solutions

Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being

13th EditionMichael R Solomon

449 solutions

Social Psychology

10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Timothy D. Wilson

525 solutions

- an operational definition is not the same as the construct itself; we can define and measure variables(intelligence, motivation, anxiety etc.,)but in fact we are measuring external manifestations that provide an indication of the underlying variables. As a result, there are always concerns about the quality of operational definitions and the measurements they produce.
- there is not a one-to-one relationship between the variable that is being measured and the actual measurements produced by the operational definition
-ex. an instructor evaluating the students in a class. the underlying variable is knowledge or mastery of subject matter, and the instructor's goal is to obtain a measure of knowledge for each student. but knowledge is a construct that cannot be directly observed or measured. Therefore, instructors typically give students a task (such as an exam, an essay, or a set of problems), and then measure how well students perform the task. Although it makes sense to expect that performance is a reflection of knowledge, performance and knowledge are not the same thing. For example, physical illness or fatigue may affect performance on an exam, but they probably do not affect knowledge. There is not a one-to-one relationship between the variable that the instructor wants to measure (knowledge) and the actual measurements that are made (performance).

The researchers demonstrated convergent validity by showing strong relationships among the five RQI scale ratings, indicating that the five domains of the RQI are converging on the same construct (relationship quality).
- After establishing convergent validity, however, the researchers wanted to demonstrate that the RQI is really measuring relationship quality and not some other variable.
o For example, the scores may actually reflect the general level of satisfaction with the relationship rather than the quality.
o It is possible, for example, for couples to be satisfied with a low-quality relationship.
o To resolve this problem, it is necessary to demonstrate that the two constructs, "quality" and "satisfaction," are separate and distinct.
o The researchers established divergent validity by showing a weak relationship between the RQI quality scores and measures of general satisfaction. Specifically, correlations between the domain-specific measures of quality from the RQI and global relationship satisfaction scores were generally low.
o By demonstrating that two or more different methods of measurement produce strongly related scores for the same construct (convergent validity), and by demonstrating a weak relationship between the measurements for two distinct constructs (divergent validity), you can provide very strong and convincing evidence of validity. That is, there is little doubt that you are actually measuring the construct that you intend to measure.

- reaction time
- Ex. you are participating in a cognitive skill test. A pair of one-digit numbers is presented on a screen and your task is to press a button as quickly as possible if the two digits add to 10 (Ackerman & Beier, 2007).
- On some trials, you will be fully alert and focused on the screen, with your finger tensed and ready to move.
- On other trials, you may be daydreaming or distracted, with your attention elsewhere, so that extra time passes before you can refocus on the numbers, mentally add them, and respond.
- In general, it is quite common for reaction time on some trials to be twice as long as reaction time on other trials. When scores change dramatically from one trial to another, the measurements are said to be unreliable, and we cannot trust any single measurement to provide an accurate indication of an individual's true score.

· Observer error: The individual who makes the measurements can introduce simple human error into the measurement process, especially when the measurement involves a degree of human judgment.
o Ex. consider a baseball umpire judging balls and strikes or a college professor grading student essays. The same pitch could be called a ball once and a strike later in the game, or the same essay could receive an A one semester and a B at a different time. In each case, the measurement includes some error introduced by the observer.
· Environmental changes: Although the goal is to measure the same individual under identical circumstances, this ideal is difficult to attain. Often, there are small changes in the environment from one measurement to another, and these small changes can influence the measurements. There are so many environmental variables (such as time of day, temperature, weather conditions, and lighting) that it is essentially impossible to obtain two identical environmental conditions.
· Participant changes: The participant can change between measurements. As noted earlier, a person's degree of focus and attention can change quickly and can have a dramatic effect on measures of reaction time.
o Such changes may cause the obtained measurements to differ, producing what appear to be inconsistent or unreliable measurements. Ex. hunger probably does not lower intelligence, but it can be a distraction that causes a lower score on an IQ test.

- height in inches or weight in pounds could be either interval or ratio depending on how the zero point is defined.
o For example, with traditional measurements of weight, zero corresponds to none (no weight) and the measurements form a ratio scale. In this case, an 80-pound child (80 pounds above 0) weighs twice as much as a 40-pound child (40 pounds above 0).
- Now consider a set of measurements that define the zero point as the average weight for the age group. In this situation, each child is being measured relative to the average, so a child who is 12 pounds above average receives a score of 112 pounds. A child who is 4 pounds below average is assigned a score of 24 pounds.
- Now the measurements make up an interval scale. In particular, a child who is 12 pounds above average (112) does not weigh twice as much as a child who is 6 pounds above average (16). You should note, however, that the ratio and the interval measurements provide the same information about the distance between two scores.
- For the ratio measurements, 84 pounds is 4 more than 80 pounds.
- For the interval measurements, a score of +8 pounds is 5 more than a score of +3 pounds. For most applications, the ability to measure distances is far more important than the ability to measure ratios.
- Therefore, in most situations, the distinction between interval and ratio scales has little practical significance.

- constructs often reveal themselves in overt behaviors that can be observed and measured. The behaviors may be completely natural events such as laughing, playing, eating, sleeping, arguing, or speaking. Or the behaviors may be structured, as when a researcher measures performance on a designated task. In the latter case, a researcher usually develops a specific task in which performance is theoretically dependent on the construct being measured.
o For example, reaction time could be measured to determine whether a drug affects mental alertness; the number of words recalled from a list provides a measure of memory ability; and performance on an IQ test is a measure of intelligence. To measure the "fear of flying," a researcher could construct a hierarchy of potential behaviors (visiting an airport, walking onto a plane, sitting in a plane while it idles at the gate, riding in a plane while it taxies on a runway, and actually flying) and measuring how far up the hierarchy an individual is willing to go.

- a vast number of options, making it possible to select the behaviors that seem to be best for defining and measuring the construct.
o For example, the construct "mental alertness" could be operationally defined by behaviors such as reaction time, reading comprehension, logical reasoning ability, or ability to focus attention. Depending on the specific purpose of a research study, one of these measures probably is more appropriate than the others.
-In clinical situations in which a researcher works with individual clients, a single construct such as depression may reveal itself as a separate, unique behavioral problem for each client. In this case, the clinician can construct a separate, unique behavioral definition of depression that is appropriate for each patient.
-- In other situations, the behavior may be the actual variable of interest and not just an indicator of some hypothetical construct. For a school psychologist trying to reduce disruptive behavior in the classroom, it is the actual behavior that the psychologist wants to observe and measure. In this case, the psychologist does not use the overt behavior as an operational definition of an intangible construct but rather simply studies the behavior itself.

- The true purpose of a questionnaire can be masked by embedding a few critical questions in a larger set of irrelevant items or by deliberately using questions with low face validity.
- Another option is to suggest (subtly or openly) that the participant is performing one task when, in fact, we are observing and measuring something else. In either case, some level of deception is involved, which can raise a question of ethics (see Chapter 4).
- The most direct strategy for limiting reactivity is to reassure participants that their performance or responses are completely confidential and anonymous, and encourage them to make honest, natural responses. Any attempt to reassure and relax participants helps reduce reactivity.- The true purpose of a questionnaire can be masked by embedding a few critical questions in a larger set of irrelevant items or by deliberately using questions with low face validity.
- Another option is to suggest (subtly or openly) that the participant is performing one task when, in fact, we are observing and measuring something else. In either case, some level of deception is involved, which can raise a question of ethics (see Chapter 4).
- The most direct strategy for limiting reactivity is to reassure participants that their performance or responses are completely confidential and anonymous, and encourage them to make honest, natural responses. Any attempt to reassure and relax participants helps reduce reactivity.

Sets with similar terms

What are the two types of validity in research?

What are the four types of construct validity?

What is the construct validity of a measure?

What is construct validity in research example?