ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

多群体区分效度评估×构念效度×
领域心理测量学心理测量学
方法族Latent structureLatent structure
起源年份1981 (foundational criterion); multi-group extension 1990s–2000s1955
提出者Fornell & Larcker (for the AVE-based criterion); extended to multi-group settings by the SEM invariance literatureLee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl
类型Validity assessment / model comparisonValidity evaluation framework
开创性文献Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. DOI ↗Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗
别名cross-group discriminant validity, multi-sample discriminant validity, MGDV, discriminant validity across groupsconstruct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation
相关56
摘要Multi-group discriminant validity assessment tests whether constructs measured by a scale are empirically distinct not just in one sample but consistently across two or more groups (e.g., cultures, genders, age cohorts). It extends standard discriminant validity criteria — such as the AVE rule and the HTMT ratio — into a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis framework to verify that conceptual distinctness is replicable across subpopulations.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.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Multi-group discriminant validity · Construct Validity. 于 2026-06-15 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare