Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Nomologinen validiteetti× | 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 evidence 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≠ | nomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Nomological validity evaluates whether a construct behaves as theory predicts within a broader network of related constructs. It is not a single statistical test but an accumulation of evidence that the measure fits coherently into a web of theoretically grounded relationships — demonstrating that what is measured is what the theory says it should measure. | 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 ↗ |
|
|