השוואת שיטות
סקרו את השיטות שבחרתם זו לצד זו; שורות שבהן יש הבדל מודגשות.
| תוקף מבחין חסון× | תוקף מבנה× | |
|---|---|---|
| תחום | פסיכומטריה | פסיכומטריה |
| משפחה | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| שנת המקור≠ | 1959 (foundational); 2015 (HTMT criterion) | 1955 |
| הוגה השיטה≠ | Henseler, Ringle & Sarstedt (HTMT); Campbell & Fiske (foundational framework) | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| סוג≠ | Validity assessment / measurement quality criterion | Validity evaluation framework |
| מקור מכונן≠ | Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. DOI ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| כינויים | HTMT criterion, heterotrait-monotrait ratio, discriminant validity testing, RDV | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| קשורות≠ | 4 | 6 |
| תקציר≠ | Robust discriminant validity assessment determines whether distinct latent constructs in a measurement model are sufficiently different from one another. Unlike traditional AVE-based approaches, robust methods such as the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio use the pattern of inter-indicator correlations to provide a more sensitive and simulation-validated criterion for judging discriminant validity in structural equation modeling contexts. | 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. |
| ScholarGateמערך נתונים ↗ |
|
|