建构效度与重复研究的效度:系统回顾。

J. Flake, I. Davidson, O. Wong, J. Pek
{"title":"建构效度与重复研究的效度:系统回顾。","authors":"J. Flake, I. Davidson, O. Wong, J. Pek","doi":"10.1037/amp0001006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Currently, there is little guidance for navigating measurement challenges that threaten construct validity in replication research. To identify common challenges and ultimately strengthen replication research, we conducted a systematic review of the measures used in the 100 original and replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Results indicate that it was common for scales used in the original studies to have little or no validity evidence. Our systematic review demonstrates and corroborates evidence that issues of construct validity are sorely neglected in original and replicated research. We identify four measurement challenges replicators are likely to face: a lack of essential measurement information, a lack of validity evidence, measurement differences, and translation. Next, we offer solutions for addressing these challenges that will improve measurement practices in original and replication research. Finally, we close with a discussion of the need to develop measurement methodologies for the next generation of replication research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":217617,"journal":{"name":"The American psychologist","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Construct validity and the validity of replication studies: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"J. Flake, I. Davidson, O. Wong, J. Pek\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Currently, there is little guidance for navigating measurement challenges that threaten construct validity in replication research. To identify common challenges and ultimately strengthen replication research, we conducted a systematic review of the measures used in the 100 original and replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Results indicate that it was common for scales used in the original studies to have little or no validity evidence. Our systematic review demonstrates and corroborates evidence that issues of construct validity are sorely neglected in original and replicated research. We identify four measurement challenges replicators are likely to face: a lack of essential measurement information, a lack of validity evidence, measurement differences, and translation. Next, we offer solutions for addressing these challenges that will improve measurement practices in original and replication research. Finally, we close with a discussion of the need to develop measurement methodologies for the next generation of replication research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":217617,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American psychologist\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

目前,在复制研究中,对于如何应对威胁结构效度的测量挑战缺乏指导。为了确定共同的挑战并最终加强复制研究,我们对可重复性项目:心理学(开放科学合作,2015)的100项原始和复制研究中使用的措施进行了系统回顾。结果表明,原始研究中使用的量表通常只有很少或没有有效证据。我们的系统综述证明并证实了构造效度问题在原始和重复研究中被严重忽视的证据。我们确定了复制者可能面临的四个测量挑战:缺乏必要的测量信息,缺乏有效性证据,测量差异和翻译。接下来,我们将提供解决这些挑战的解决方案,这些解决方案将改善原始和复制研究中的测量实践。最后,我们讨论了为下一代复制研究开发测量方法的必要性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Construct validity and the validity of replication studies: A systematic review.
Currently, there is little guidance for navigating measurement challenges that threaten construct validity in replication research. To identify common challenges and ultimately strengthen replication research, we conducted a systematic review of the measures used in the 100 original and replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Results indicate that it was common for scales used in the original studies to have little or no validity evidence. Our systematic review demonstrates and corroborates evidence that issues of construct validity are sorely neglected in original and replicated research. We identify four measurement challenges replicators are likely to face: a lack of essential measurement information, a lack of validity evidence, measurement differences, and translation. Next, we offer solutions for addressing these challenges that will improve measurement practices in original and replication research. Finally, we close with a discussion of the need to develop measurement methodologies for the next generation of replication research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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