Lee Sechrest1. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHOD: This article aims to promote a better understanding of the nature of measurement, the special problems posed by measurement in the social sciences, and the inevitable limitations on inferences in science (so that results are not overinterpreted), by using the measurement of blood pressure as an example. As it is necessary to raise questions about the meaning and extent of the validity of something as common as measured blood pressure, even more serious questions are unavoidable in relation to other commonly used measures in social science. The central issue is the validity of the inferences about the construct rather than the validity of the measure per se. CONCLUSION: It is important to consider the definition and validity of the construct at issue as well as the adequacy of its representation in the measurement instrument. By considering a particular construct within the context of a conceptual model, researchers and clinicians will improve their understanding of the construct's validity as measured.
PURPOSE AND METHOD: This article aims to promote a better understanding of the nature of measurement, the special problems posed by measurement in the social sciences, and the inevitable limitations on inferences in science (so that results are not overinterpreted), by using the measurement of blood pressure as an example. As it is necessary to raise questions about the meaning and extent of the validity of something as common as measured blood pressure, even more serious questions are unavoidable in relation to other commonly used measures in social science. The central issue is the validity of the inferences about the construct rather than the validity of the measure per se. CONCLUSION: It is important to consider the definition and validity of the construct at issue as well as the adequacy of its representation in the measurement instrument. By considering a particular construct within the context of a conceptual model, researchers and clinicians will improve their understanding of the construct's validity as measured.
Authors: Anita L DeStefano; Martin G Larson; Gary F Mitchell; Emelia J Benjamin; Ramachandran S Vasan; Jiang Li; Diane Corey; Daniel Levy Journal: Hypertension Date: 2004-06-21 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Daniel D Matlock; Celia E Wills; Mary Ropka; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Dawn Stacey; ChirkJenn Ng; Carrie Levin; Joanne Lally; Cornelia M Borkhoff; Richard Thomson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: F Xavier Castellanos; Adriana Di Martino; R Cameron Craddock; Ashesh D Mehta; Michael P Milham Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Siddharth Jain; Paul R Rosenbaum; Joseph G Reiter; Geoffrey Hoffman; Dylan S Small; Jinkyung Ha; Alexander S Hill; David A Wolk; Timothy Gaulton; Mark D Neuman; Roderic G Eckenhoff; Lee A Fleisher; Jeffrey H Silber Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Wolf E Mehling; Viranjini Gopisetty; Jennifer Daubenmier; Cynthia J Price; Frederick M Hecht; Anita Stewart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240