Usporedite metode
Pregledajte odabrane metode jednu uz drugu; retci koji se razlikuju su istaknuti.
| Višerazinska nomološka valjanost× | Konstruktna valjanost× | |
|---|---|---|
| Područje | Psihometrija | Psihometrija |
| Obitelj | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Godina nastanka≠ | 2005 | 1955 |
| Tvorac≠ | Chen, Bliese & Mathieu (building on Cronbach & Meehl) | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Vrsta≠ | Validity assessment / construct validation | Validity evaluation framework |
| Temeljni izvor≠ | Chen, G., Bliese, P. D. & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 375–409. DOI ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| Drugi nazivi | cross-level construct validity, multilevel construct validation, MNV, nomological validity across levels | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Srodne≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Sažetak≠ | Multilevel nomological validity evaluates whether a psychological construct and its network of theoretical relationships hold consistently across multiple levels of analysis — such as individual, team, and organization. It extends classical construct validation to nested data structures, ensuring that a measure means the same thing and behaves as theory predicts at each level. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSkup podataka ↗ |
|
|