Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

Campbell, Donald T.; Fiske, Donald W.

doi:10.1037/h0046016

Cited by 14,260 publications

(9,623 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

174

Mentioning

9,220

Contrasting

Unclassified

218

Order By: Relevance

“…Multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses are a method for assessing the construct validity of a set of measures (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). MTMM are based on a correlation matrix of multiple traits (e.g.…”

Section: Construct Validity Of the Sdq Subscales Across Informantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When to Use Broader Internalising and Externalising Subscales Instead of the Hypothesised Five Subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British Parents, Teachers and Children

Goodman

Lamping

Ploubidis

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

1,279

1,164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goodman, A; Lamping, DL; Ploubidis, GB (2010) AbstractThe Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a widely used child mental health questionnaire with five hypothesised subscales. There is theoretical and preliminary empirical support for combining the SDQ's hypothesised emotional and peer subscales into an 'internalizing' subscale and the hypothesised behavioral and hyperactivity subscales into an 'externalizing' subscale (alongside the fifth prosocial subscale). We examine this using parent, teacher and youth SDQ data from a representative sample of 5 to 16 year olds in Britain (N=18,222). Factor analyses generally supported second-order internalizing and externalizing factors, and the internalizing and externalizing subscales showed good convergent and discriminant validity across informants and with respect to clinical disorder. By contrast, discriminant validity was poorer between the emotional and peer subscales and between the behavioral, hyperactivity and prosocial subscales. This applied particularly to children with low scores on those subscales. We conclude that there are advantages to using the broader internalizing and externalizing SDQ subscales for analyses in low-risk samples, while retaining all five subscales when screening for disorder.

show abstract

Section: Construct Validity Of the Sdq Subscales Across Informantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When to Use Broader Internalising and Externalising Subscales Instead of the Hypothesised Five Subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British Parents, Teachers and Children

Goodman

Lamping

Ploubidis

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

1,279

1,164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the crossing or partial crossing of dimensions with exercises in ACs is, rightly or wrongly (see Lance, Baranik, Lau, & Scharlau, 2009), reminiscent of a multitrait-multimethod matrix (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), which serves to further reinforce the idea that dimensions equal traits. We consider this a flawed line of reasoning.…”

Section: Expectations Surrounding Ac Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Everything that you have ever been told about assessment center ratings is confounded.

Jackson

Michaelides

Dewberry

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a substantial research literature on the influence of dimensions and exercises in assessment centers (ACs), the relative impact of these two sources of variance continues to raise uncertainties because of confounding. With confounded effects, it is not possible to establish the degree to which any one effect, including those related to exercises and dimensions, influences AC ratings. In the current study (N = 698) we used Bayesian generalizability theory to unconfound all of the possible effects contributing to variance in AC ratings. Our results show that ≤ 1.11% of the variance in AC ratings was directly attributable to behavioral dimensions, suggesting that dimension-related effects have no practical impact on the reliability of ACs.Even when taking aggregation level into consideration, effects related to general performance and exercises accounted for almost all of the reliable variance in AC ratings. The implications of these findings for recent dimension-and exercise-based perspectives on ACs are discussed. When, in the context of selection, appraisal, and development, behavioral criteria are used to evaluate individuals, it is essential that these criteria are measured reliably.Unsurprisingly, therefore, the measurement properties of assessment center (AC) ratings have come under close scrutiny in the applied psychology literature. In ACs, the behavior of jobholders or candidates is sampled across several work-related situations (exercises, e.g., a role play exercise, group discussion, presentation) and is typically assessed by trained assessors in terms of pre-defined behavioral dimensions (e.g., communication skills, teamwork, planning and organizing). As a result of their multifaceted measurement properties, incorporating dimensions, exercises, and assessors, ACs provide a rich source of information about the extent to which work-related behavioral criteria can be reliably measured in a job-relevant setting.Historically, researchers have questioned the extent to which behavioral dimensions are measured reliably in ACs, and have implied that researchers should utilize an exercise-oriented approach to scoring ACs

show abstract

“…Originally this methodology was introduced by Campbell and Fiske (1959 (Schmitt and Stults, 1986;Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1989). We have performed analyses based on both classical Campbell and Fiske criteria and by using confirmatory factor analysis.…”

Section: A P P E N D Ix Amentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Krabbe

Essink‐Bot

Bonsel

1997

Social Science & Medicine

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2018-05-09 and may be subject to change.P e r g a m o n Soc. Sci. Med, Vol. 45, N o. I l , pp. 1641-1652, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. A ll rights reserved P I I : S 0 2 7 7 -9 5 3 6 (9 7 )0 0 0 9 9 -3 Printed in Great Britain 0277-9536/97 $17. Abstract-The objective of the study was to consider five methods for valuing health states with respect to their comparability (convergent validity, value functions) and reliability. Valuation tasks were per formed by 104 student volunteers using five frequently used valuation methods: standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), rating scale (RS), willingness-to-pay (WTP) and the paired comparisons method (PC). Throughout the study, the EuroQoI classification system was used to construct 13 health-state descriptions. Validity was investigated using the multitrait-multimethod (M TM M ) methodology. The extent to which results of one method could be predicted by another was examined by transformations. Reliability of the methods was studied parametrically with Generalis ability Theory (an A N O V A exten sion), as well as non-parametrically. Mean values for SG were slightly higher than TTO values. The RS could be distinguished from the other methods. After a simple power transformation, the RS values were found to be close to SG and TTO. Mean values of WTP were linearly related to SG and TTO, except at the extremes of the scale. However, the reliability of WTP was low and the number of incon sistencies substantial. Valuations made by the RS proved to be the most reliable. Paired comparisons did not provide stable results. In conclusion, the results of the parametric transformation function between RS and SG/TTO provide evidence to justify the current use of RS (with transformations) not only for reasons of feasibility and reliability but also for reasons o f comparability. A definite judgement on PC requires data of a complete design. Due to the specific structure of the correlation matrix which is inherent in valuing health states, we believe that full M TM M is not applicable for the standard analysis of health-state valuations.

show abstract

Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

Abstract: We are also indebted to numerous colleagues for their thoughtful criticisms and encouragement of an earlier draft of this paper, especially

Cited by 14,260 publications

References 26 publications

When to Use Broader Internalising and Externalising Subscales Instead of the Hypothesised Five Subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British Parents, Teachers and Children

When to Use Broader Internalising and Externalising Subscales Instead of the Hypothesised Five Subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British Parents, Teachers and Children

Everything that you have ever been told about assessment center ratings is confounded.

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About