Maul's paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation" (Andrew Maul), contains two stages. First he presents empirical results that cast doubt on traditional methods for validating psychological measurement instruments. These results motivate the second stage, a critique of current conceptions of psychological measurement…

In this commentary on "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," found in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," William Fisher writes that Maul's paper raises issues of validity in survey-based measurement that deserve far wider consideration and scrutiny than they typically…

In the article "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation" Andrew Maul describes a minimalist validation methodology for survey instruments, which he suggests is widely used in some areas of psychology and then critiques this methodology empirically and conceptually. He provides a reduction ad absurdum argument by showing that…

In his focus article, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," published in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," Andrew Maul introduces and discusses several foundational issues and concludes that self-report measures may be particularly difficult to validate and may fall short…

In Andrew Maul's focus paper "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation'" published in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," Maul contends that self-report measures may be particularly difficult to validate. He cautions that such techniques may fall short of providing the kinds of…

Maul's paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," is a clever and pointed indictment of a set of specific but widespread practices in psychological measurement and the social sciences at large. Through it, Maul highlights central issues in the way to approach theory building and theory testing, bringing to mind the…

In this commentary from Issue 14, n3, authors John Cadogan and Nick Lee applaud the paper by Aguirre-Urreta, Rönkkö, and Marakas "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives", 14(3), 75-97 (2016), since their explanations and simulations work toward demystifying causal indicator models, which are often used by scholars…

The target paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation" (Andrew Maul), raises some interesting critical ideas, both old and new, about the validation of self-report surveys. As indicated by Dr. Maul, recent policy initiatives in the United States (e.g., ESSA) have led to a demand for assessments of…

From the time of Likert (1932) on, attitudes of expediency regarding both theory and methodology became apparent with reference to survey construction and validation practices. In place of theory and more--theoretically minded methods, such as those found in the early work of Thurstone (1928) and Coombs (1964), statistical models and…

Keith Marcus congratulates Almond et al. on an interesting article bringing together two topics that are important to the field of testing. He states that some aspects of the exposition came across as not yet fully developed, as if the manuscript had been hurried to press. In this commentary, he attempts to expand aspects of the article, which he…

The authors of the focus article describe an important issue related to the use and interpretation of causal indicators within the context of structural equation modeling (SEM). In the focus article, the authors illustrate with simulated data the effects of omitting a causal indicator. Since SEMs are used extensively in the social and behavioral…

There is something about the topic of validity that seems to provoke dissatisfaction in many of those who encounter it--a sense that something is not right, and that something needs to be done to sort it out. Paul E. Newton in his target essay does not attempt a radical reconstruction of the validity edifice. His position is that the "consensus…

This paper presents the authors' critique on "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" by Paul E. Newton (this issue). There are serious differences of opinion regarding the topic of validity. Newton is aware of these differences, as made clear by his choice of references and particularly his effort to respond to the various Borsboom…

In this commentary, Kuhn and Ranger hypothesize that most people are aware that talent does not guarantee success in case one is lazy. This is also true for the performance in achievement tests that depends on, among other factors, achievement potential (ability) and willingness to achieve (test-taking motivation) of the test taker. They add that…

As illuminated forcefully by Professor Newton's provocative analytical and historical excursion, as long as tests are employed to practical ends (prediction, selection, etc.) there is little cause for the metatheoretic angst that occasions rounds of papers on the topic of validity. But then, also, there seems little need, within this context of…