在叮当声中理解言语:听力努力研究中改进测量方法的建议。

Auditory perception & cognition Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-23 DOI:10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293
Julia F Strand, Lucia Ray, Naseem H Dillman-Hasso, Jed Villanueva, Violet A Brown
{"title":"在叮当声中理解言语:听力努力研究中改进测量方法的建议。","authors":"Julia F Strand,&nbsp;Lucia Ray,&nbsp;Naseem H Dillman-Hasso,&nbsp;Jed Villanueva,&nbsp;Violet A Brown","doi":"10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The latent constructs psychologists study are typically not directly accessible, so researchers must design measurement instruments that are intended to provide insights about those constructs. Construct validation-assessing whether instruments measure what they intend to-is therefore critical for ensuring that the conclusions we draw actually reflect the intended phenomena. Insufficient construct validation can lead to the <i>jingle fallacy-</i>falsely assuming two instruments measure the same construct because the instruments share a name (Thorndike, 1904)-and the <i>jangle fallacy-</i>falsely assuming two instruments measure different constructs because the instruments have different names (Kelley, 1927). In this paper, we examine construct validation practices in research on <i>listening effort</i> and identify patterns that strongly suggest the presence of jingle and jangle in the literature. We argue that the lack of construct validation for listening effort measures has led to inconsistent findings and hindered our understanding of the construct. We also provide specific recommendations for improving construct validation of listening effort instruments, drawing on the framework laid out in a recent paper on improving measurement practices (Flake & Fried, 2020). Although this paper addresses listening effort, the issues raised and recommendations presented are widely applicable to tasks used in research on auditory perception and cognitive psychology.</p>","PeriodicalId":72332,"journal":{"name":"Auditory perception & cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.\",\"authors\":\"Julia F Strand,&nbsp;Lucia Ray,&nbsp;Naseem H Dillman-Hasso,&nbsp;Jed Villanueva,&nbsp;Violet A Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The latent constructs psychologists study are typically not directly accessible, so researchers must design measurement instruments that are intended to provide insights about those constructs. Construct validation-assessing whether instruments measure what they intend to-is therefore critical for ensuring that the conclusions we draw actually reflect the intended phenomena. Insufficient construct validation can lead to the <i>jingle fallacy-</i>falsely assuming two instruments measure the same construct because the instruments share a name (Thorndike, 1904)-and the <i>jangle fallacy-</i>falsely assuming two instruments measure different constructs because the instruments have different names (Kelley, 1927). In this paper, we examine construct validation practices in research on <i>listening effort</i> and identify patterns that strongly suggest the presence of jingle and jangle in the literature. We argue that the lack of construct validation for listening effort measures has led to inconsistent findings and hindered our understanding of the construct. We also provide specific recommendations for improving construct validation of listening effort instruments, drawing on the framework laid out in a recent paper on improving measurement practices (Flake & Fried, 2020). Although this paper addresses listening effort, the issues raised and recommendations presented are widely applicable to tasks used in research on auditory perception and cognitive psychology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Auditory perception & cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Auditory perception & cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/3/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Auditory perception & cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理学家研究的潜在构念通常是无法直接获得的,因此研究人员必须设计出旨在提供对这些构念的见解的测量工具。因此,构造验证——评估工具是否测量了它们想要测量的东西——对于确保我们得出的结论实际上反映了预期的现象是至关重要的。构念验证不足会导致“叮当谬误”——错误地假设两个仪器测量同一个构念,因为它们有相同的名称(桑代克,1904)——以及“叮当谬误”——错误地假设两个仪器测量不同的构念,因为它们有不同的名称(凯利,1927)。在本文中,我们研究了听力努力研究中的结构验证实践,并确定了在文献中强烈表明叮当声和叮当声存在的模式。我们认为,缺乏对听力努力测量的构念验证导致了不一致的结果,并阻碍了我们对构念的理解。我们还根据最近一篇关于改进测量实践的论文(Flake & Fried, 2020)中提出的框架,为改进听力努力工具的结构验证提供了具体建议。虽然本文讨论的是倾听努力,但提出的问题和建议广泛适用于听觉感知和认知心理学研究中使用的任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.

The latent constructs psychologists study are typically not directly accessible, so researchers must design measurement instruments that are intended to provide insights about those constructs. Construct validation-assessing whether instruments measure what they intend to-is therefore critical for ensuring that the conclusions we draw actually reflect the intended phenomena. Insufficient construct validation can lead to the jingle fallacy-falsely assuming two instruments measure the same construct because the instruments share a name (Thorndike, 1904)-and the jangle fallacy-falsely assuming two instruments measure different constructs because the instruments have different names (Kelley, 1927). In this paper, we examine construct validation practices in research on listening effort and identify patterns that strongly suggest the presence of jingle and jangle in the literature. We argue that the lack of construct validation for listening effort measures has led to inconsistent findings and hindered our understanding of the construct. We also provide specific recommendations for improving construct validation of listening effort instruments, drawing on the framework laid out in a recent paper on improving measurement practices (Flake & Fried, 2020). Although this paper addresses listening effort, the issues raised and recommendations presented are widely applicable to tasks used in research on auditory perception and cognitive 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
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