Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Käsitevaliditeetti× | Vahvistava faktorianalyysi (CFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Psykometriikka | Psykometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1955 | 1969 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| Tyyppi≠ | Validity evaluation framework | Hypothesis-testing latent variable model |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ | Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Construct validity is the degree to which a test or scale actually measures the theoretical construct it is intended to measure. Introduced by Cronbach and Meehl in 1955, it is the central validity concern in psychological and educational measurement, evaluated by accumulating multiple lines of empirical and logical evidence rather than by any single statistical test. | Confirmatory factor analysis tests a researcher-specified factor structure against observed data. Unlike exploratory approaches, the researcher decides in advance which indicators load on which latent factor, and the model is evaluated by how closely the implied covariance matrix reproduces the sample covariance matrix. CFA is central to scale validation, construct validity assessment, and measurement invariance testing. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|