Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Nomoloģiskā validitāte× | Konstrukta validitāte× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Psihometrija | Psihometrija |
| Saime | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Izcelsmes gads | 1955 | 1955 |
| Autors | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tips≠ | Validity evidence framework | Validity evaluation framework |
| Pirmavots≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | nomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Saistītās | 6 | 6 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|