心理学家如何确定一个测量量表是否好?四分之一世纪的规模验证与Hu & Bentler(1999)。

IF 29.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Daniel McNeish
{"title":"心理学家如何确定一个测量量表是否好?四分之一世纪的规模验证与Hu & Bentler(1999)。","authors":"Daniel McNeish","doi":"10.1146/annurev-psych-121924-104021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many psychologists rely on surveys, questionnaires, and measurement scales because psychological constructs like depression, motivation, or extraversion cannot be directly measured with physical instruments. Scale validation crucially provides evidence that scores from such scales capture their intended target. The prevailing scale validation approach involves comparing factor-analytic model fit indices to suggested benchmarks, and it is so engrained in psychological research that the article proposing the benchmarks is among the most cited works across any scientific discipline. However, methodological research finds that psychologists overgeneralize the benchmarks so that they no longer function as originally intended. This has widespread implications for psychologists and casts some doubt on conclusions regarding the validity of our measurement scales. This review covers the history and origin of scale validation benchmarks, how benchmarks rose to prominence and became overgeneralized, recently proposed alternatives to traditional benchmarks, and future directions in this methodological area that affects many subfields of psychology.</p>","PeriodicalId":8010,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":29.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Psychologists Determine Whether a Measurement Scale Is Good? A Quarter-Century of Scale Validation with Hu & Bentler (1999).\",\"authors\":\"Daniel McNeish\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-psych-121924-104021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many psychologists rely on surveys, questionnaires, and measurement scales because psychological constructs like depression, motivation, or extraversion cannot be directly measured with physical instruments. Scale validation crucially provides evidence that scores from such scales capture their intended target. The prevailing scale validation approach involves comparing factor-analytic model fit indices to suggested benchmarks, and it is so engrained in psychological research that the article proposing the benchmarks is among the most cited works across any scientific discipline. However, methodological research finds that psychologists overgeneralize the benchmarks so that they no longer function as originally intended. This has widespread implications for psychologists and casts some doubt on conclusions regarding the validity of our measurement scales. This review covers the history and origin of scale validation benchmarks, how benchmarks rose to prominence and became overgeneralized, recently proposed alternatives to traditional benchmarks, and future directions in this methodological area that affects many subfields of psychology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":29.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-121924-104021\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-121924-104021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多心理学家依靠调查、问卷和测量量表,因为像抑郁、动机或外向性这样的心理结构不能用物理仪器直接测量。量表验证至关重要地提供了证据,证明这些量表的分数捕捉到了它们的预期目标。流行的量表验证方法包括将因素分析模型拟合指数与建议的基准进行比较,这在心理学研究中是如此根深蒂固,以至于提出基准的文章在任何科学学科中都是被引用最多的作品之一。然而,方法论研究发现,心理学家过度概括了基准,以至于它们不再像最初预期的那样起作用。这对心理学家产生了广泛的影响,并对我们测量量表的有效性产生了一些怀疑。这篇综述涵盖了尺度验证基准的历史和起源,基准是如何变得突出和过度概括的,最近提出的替代传统基准的方法,以及在这个影响心理学许多子领域的方法论领域的未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Psychologists Determine Whether a Measurement Scale Is Good? A Quarter-Century of Scale Validation with Hu & Bentler (1999).

Many psychologists rely on surveys, questionnaires, and measurement scales because psychological constructs like depression, motivation, or extraversion cannot be directly measured with physical instruments. Scale validation crucially provides evidence that scores from such scales capture their intended target. The prevailing scale validation approach involves comparing factor-analytic model fit indices to suggested benchmarks, and it is so engrained in psychological research that the article proposing the benchmarks is among the most cited works across any scientific discipline. However, methodological research finds that psychologists overgeneralize the benchmarks so that they no longer function as originally intended. This has widespread implications for psychologists and casts some doubt on conclusions regarding the validity of our measurement scales. This review covers the history and origin of scale validation benchmarks, how benchmarks rose to prominence and became overgeneralized, recently proposed alternatives to traditional benchmarks, and future directions in this methodological area that affects many subfields of psychology.

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
Annual review of psychology
Annual review of psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
47.30
自引率
0.80%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Psychology, a publication that has been available since 1950, provides comprehensive coverage of the latest advancements in psychological research. It encompasses a wide range of topics, including the biological underpinnings of human behavior, the intricacies of our senses and perception, the functioning of the mind, animal behavior and learning, human development, psychopathology, clinical and counseling psychology, social psychology, personality, environmental psychology, community psychology, and much more. In a recent development, the current volume of this esteemed journal has transitioned from a subscription-based model to an open access format as part of the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open initiative. As a result, all articles published in this volume are now freely accessible to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信