Getting entangled in the nomological net: Thoughts on validity and conceptual overlap

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 157-161

  Ziegler, Matthias ^a   Booth, Tom ^b   Bensch, Doreen ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883367396     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000173     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Alonso-Arbiol, I., & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). A historical analysis of the European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 238-247. doi 10.1027/1015-5759/a000032
2. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
3. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
4. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, F. W., & Trierweiler, L. I. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C (M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8, 38-60. doi 10.1037/1082-989x.8.1.38 (Pubitemid 37177398)
5. Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-18.
6. Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The Eugene-Springfield community sample: Information available from the research participants (Vol. 45, 1, Technical Report). Eugene, OR: Oregon Research Institute.
7. Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., & Price, J. (2011). A comparison of agreeableness scores from the Big Five Inventory and the NEO PI-R: Consequences for the study of narcissism and psychopathy. Assessment, 18, 335-339. doi 10.1177/1073191111411671
8. Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the "same" construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 669-676. doi 10.1016/j.paid.2010. 06.014
9. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69): Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. (Pubitemid 37239703)
11. Rammstedt, B., & Kemper, C. J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of the Big Five: Shedding further light on potential causes of the educational bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 121-125.
12. Schweizer, K. (2011). On the changing role of Cronbach's a in the evaluation of the quality of a measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 143-144. doi 10.1027/1015-5759/a000069
13. Schweizer, K. (2012). On issues of validity and especially on the misery of convergent validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 249-254. doi 10.1027/1015-5759/a000156
14. Wetzel, E., Carstensen, C. H., & Böhnke, J. R. (2013). Consistency of extreme response style and nonextreme response style across traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 178-189. doi 10.1016/j.jrp. 2012.10.010
15. Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 548-565.
16. Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (Eds.). (2011). New perspectives on faking in personality assessments. New York: Oxford University Press.