Multiplicative invalidity and its application to complex correlational models.

David Trafimow
{"title":"Multiplicative invalidity and its application to complex correlational models.","authors":"David Trafimow","doi":"10.3200/mono.132.3.215-240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An ever-increasing proportion of social psychology researchers use various versions of complex correlational models such as path analyses or structural equation models and others to draw causal conclusions from correlational data. Critics of complex correlational models have pointed out that (a) misspecification errors are the rule rather than the exception, (b) one cannot draw causal conclusions from a set of correlations, (c) most researchers fail to adjust their correlations for attenuation due to unreliability, and (d) the measures researchers use may actually be measures of outside variables that are correlated with other variables in one's model. Rather than rehash the debates that go along with these criticisms, the author makes some assumptions that are extremely favorable to the complex correlational modeler in that all of these criticisms are disallowed. Nevertheless, even with these assumptions, the author shows how spurious direct and indirect effects are likely to be created by moderately valid measures when researchers compute complex correlations. The author concludes that until social psychologists are better able to deal with the issue of the validity of their measures, they should not use complex correlational models.</p>","PeriodicalId":77145,"journal":{"name":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","volume":"132 3","pages":"215-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3200/mono.132.3.215-240","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/mono.132.3.215-240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

An ever-increasing proportion of social psychology researchers use various versions of complex correlational models such as path analyses or structural equation models and others to draw causal conclusions from correlational data. Critics of complex correlational models have pointed out that (a) misspecification errors are the rule rather than the exception, (b) one cannot draw causal conclusions from a set of correlations, (c) most researchers fail to adjust their correlations for attenuation due to unreliability, and (d) the measures researchers use may actually be measures of outside variables that are correlated with other variables in one's model. Rather than rehash the debates that go along with these criticisms, the author makes some assumptions that are extremely favorable to the complex correlational modeler in that all of these criticisms are disallowed. Nevertheless, even with these assumptions, the author shows how spurious direct and indirect effects are likely to be created by moderately valid measures when researchers compute complex correlations. The author concludes that until social psychologists are better able to deal with the issue of the validity of their measures, they should not use complex correlational models.

乘法无效性及其在复杂相关模型中的应用。
越来越多的社会心理学研究人员使用各种版本的复杂相关模型,如路径分析或结构方程模型等,从相关数据中得出因果结论。复杂相关模型的批评者指出:(a)错误描述是规则而不是例外,(b)人们不能从一组相关性中得出因果结论,(c)由于不可靠,大多数研究人员未能调整其相关性的衰减,以及(d)研究人员使用的测量实际上可能是与模型中其他变量相关的外部变量的测量。作者没有重复这些批评的争论,而是做了一些对复杂相关建模者非常有利的假设,因为所有这些批评都是不允许的。然而,即使有了这些假设,作者也表明,当研究人员计算复杂的相关性时,通过适度有效的测量,可能会产生虚假的直接和间接影响。作者的结论是,在社会心理学家能够更好地处理其测量的有效性问题之前,他们不应该使用复杂的相关模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信