Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Robustin nomologisen validiteetin arviointi× | Vahvistava faktorianalyysi (CFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Psykometriikka | Psykometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1955 | 1969 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Cronbach & Meehl (seminal framework); later extended by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| Tyyppi≠ | Validity assessment / construct validation | 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, robust validity testing, nomological validity, RNV | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| Liittyvät≠ | 5 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Robust nomological validity evaluates whether a psychological construct relates to theoretically expected variables in the predicted directions, using statistically robust estimation methods that remain trustworthy when distributional assumptions are violated. It tests the construct's place within its nomological network — the web of theoretical relationships that define its meaning. | 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 ↗ |
|
|