An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2020-11-23 DOI:10.1177/1094428120968614
Mikko Rönkkö, Eunseong Cho
{"title":"An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity","authors":"Mikko Rönkkö, Eunseong Cho","doi":"10.1177/1094428120968614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discriminant validity was originally presented as a set of empirical criteria that can be assessed from multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices. Because datasets used by applied researchers rarely lend themselves to MTMM analysis, the need to assess discriminant validity in empirical research has led to the introduction of numerous techniques, some of which have been introduced in an ad hoc manner and without rigorous methodological support. We review various definitions of and techniques for assessing discriminant validity and provide a generalized definition of discriminant validity based on the correlation between two measures after measurement error has been considered. We then review techniques that have been proposed for discriminant validity assessment, demonstrating some problems and equivalencies of these techniques that have gone unnoticed by prior research. After conducting Monte Carlo simulations that compare the techniques, we present techniques called CICFA(sys) and χ 2 (sys) that applied researchers can use to assess discriminant validity.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"25 1","pages":"6 - 14"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1094428120968614","citationCount":"273","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 273

Abstract

Discriminant validity was originally presented as a set of empirical criteria that can be assessed from multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices. Because datasets used by applied researchers rarely lend themselves to MTMM analysis, the need to assess discriminant validity in empirical research has led to the introduction of numerous techniques, some of which have been introduced in an ad hoc manner and without rigorous methodological support. We review various definitions of and techniques for assessing discriminant validity and provide a generalized definition of discriminant validity based on the correlation between two measures after measurement error has been considered. We then review techniques that have been proposed for discriminant validity assessment, demonstrating some problems and equivalencies of these techniques that have gone unnoticed by prior research. After conducting Monte Carlo simulations that compare the techniques, we present techniques called CICFA(sys) and χ 2 (sys) that applied researchers can use to assess discriminant validity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估歧视有效性的更新指南
判别有效性最初是作为一组经验标准提出的,可以从多特征多方法(MTMM)矩阵中进行评估。由于应用研究人员使用的数据集很少用于MTMM分析,因此在实证研究中评估判别有效性的需要导致了许多技术的引入,其中一些技术是以临时的方式引入的,没有严格的方法支持。我们回顾了判别有效性的各种定义和评估技术,并在考虑测量误差后,基于两个度量之间的相关性,提供了判别有效度的广义定义。然后,我们回顾了已经提出的用于判别有效性评估的技术,证明了这些技术的一些问题和等效性,这些问题和等价性在以前的研究中没有被注意到。在对这些技术进行蒙特卡罗模拟比较后,我们提出了被称为CICFA(sys)和χ2(sys)的技术,应用研究人员可以使用这些技术来评估判别有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
The Internet Never Forgets: A Four-Step Scraping Tutorial, Codebase, and Database for Longitudinal Organizational Website Data One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1