Commentary on Hussey and Hughes (2020): Hidden Invalidity Among 15 Commonly Used Measures in Social and Personality Psychology

Hussey and Hughes (2020) analyzed four aspects relevant to the structural validity of a psychological scale (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and measurement invariance) in 15 self-report questionnaires, some of which, such as the Big Five Inventory ( John & Srivastava, 1999) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), are very popular. In this Commentary, we argue that (a) their claim that measurement issues like these are ignored is incorrect, (b) the models they used to test structural validity do not match the construct space for many of the measures, and (c) their analyses and conclusions regarding measurement invariance were needlessly limited to a dichotomous decision rule. First, we believe it is important to note that we are in agreement with the sentiment behind Hussey and Hughes’s study and the previous work that appeared to inspire it (Flake, Pek, & Hehman, 2017). Measurement issues are seldom the focus of the articles published in the top journals in personality and social psychology, and the quality of the measures used by researchers is not a top priority in evaluating the value of the research. Furthermore, the use of ad hoc measures is common in some fields. Nonetheless, we disagree with the authors’ analyses, interpretations, and conclusions concerning the validity of these 15 specific measures for the three reasons we discuss here.