{"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}
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.
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.