Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Validité nomologique robuste× | Validité de construit× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Psychométrie | Psychométrie |
| Famille | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Année d'origine | 1955 | 1955 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Cronbach & Meehl (seminal framework); later extended by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Type≠ | Validity assessment / construct validation | Validity evaluation framework |
| Source fondatrice | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | nomological network validity, robust validity testing, nomological validity, RNV | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Apparentées≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Résumé≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|