This was a really useful summary; thank you. Thumbs up for recommending Denny Borsboom to the audience; he's one of my favourites - it's nice to see someone who cares so deeply about quality assurance in psychology, and he is such a clear writer.
Thanks for the comment. I am a big fan of Borsboom's books. Particularly "Measuring the mind" is a very good and accessible intro to measurement. I have both a hard copy and ebook of "Frontiers of test validity theory" - that is more challenging, but very useful for some more advanced things.
Dear Mikko, thank you for your lecture. I'm looking for a statistical methodology to test the nomological validity in a complex model with a mediation (5 constructs, 42 items) in which I used PLS-SEM, do you have any suggestions?
@@mronkko Thank you for your answer! I'm following Hair et al. (2020) for assessing the measurement model. However, two steps are not clear to me. In particular the nomological validity and predictive validity, could you point me some resources to explore/investigate them? Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110.
@@luigibasile3413 Hair's recommendations are not based on any evidence and have been shown not to work. I would recommend using a traditional factor analysis and then regression with scale scores.
Hello Professor Mikko, in Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014)*, "Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of tests scores for proposed uses of tests. Validity is, therefore, the most fundamental consideration in developing tests and evaluating tests... Statements about validity should refer to particular interpretations for specified uses. It is incorrect to use the unqualified phrase “the validity of the test." (p, 11). They then describe Sources of Validity Evidence: Evidence Based on Test Content Evidence-Based on Response Processes Evidence Based on Internal Structure Evidence Based on Relations to Other Variables Evidence for Validity and Consequences of Testing Do these sources represent another perspective or are they complementary to those indicated in this video? Thank you! *www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/9780935302356.pdf
Complementary. Validity is always about fitness for purpose and you cannot discuss validity unless you define the purpose first. I discuss the purposes of the three "validities" in the video.
This was a really useful summary; thank you. Thumbs up for recommending Denny Borsboom to the audience; he's one of my favourites - it's nice to see someone who cares so deeply about quality assurance in psychology, and he is such a clear writer.
Thanks for the comment. I am a big fan of Borsboom's books. Particularly "Measuring the mind" is a very good and accessible intro to measurement. I have both a hard copy and ebook of "Frontiers of test validity theory" - that is more challenging, but very useful for some more advanced things.
Dear Mikko, thank you for your lecture. I'm looking for a statistical methodology to test the nomological validity in a complex model with a mediation (5 constructs, 42 items) in which I used PLS-SEM, do you have any suggestions?
PLS cannot be used for model validation. I would recommend doing exploratory factor analysis and then sum scales in regression.
@@mronkko Thank you for your answer!
I'm following Hair et al. (2020) for assessing the measurement model. However, two steps are not clear to me. In particular the nomological validity and predictive validity, could you point me some resources to explore/investigate them?
Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110.
@@luigibasile3413 Hair's recommendations are not based on any evidence and have been shown not to work. I would recommend using a traditional factor analysis and then regression with scale scores.
@@mronkko thank you!
Hello Professor Mikko,
in Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014)*, "Validity refers to the degree to which evidence
and theory support the interpretations of tests
scores for proposed uses of tests. Validity is,
therefore, the most fundamental consideration in
developing tests and evaluating tests... Statements about validity
should refer to particular interpretations for
specified uses. It is incorrect to use the unqualified
phrase “the validity of the test." (p, 11).
They then describe Sources of Validity Evidence:
Evidence Based on Test Content
Evidence-Based on Response Processes
Evidence Based on Internal Structure
Evidence Based on Relations to Other Variables
Evidence for Validity and Consequences of Testing
Do these sources represent another perspective or are they complementary to those indicated in this video?
Thank you!
*www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/9780935302356.pdf
Complementary. Validity is always about fitness for purpose and you cannot discuss validity unless you define the purpose first. I discuss the purposes of the three "validities" in the video.
@@mronkko Thank you!