Should We Say Goodbye to Latent Constructs to Overcome Replication Crisis or Should We Take Into Account Epistemological Considerations?

Abstract

This paper discusses theoretical and epistemological problems concerning validity of psychological science in the context of latent constructs. I consider the use of latent constructs as one reason for the replicability crisis. At the moment, there exist different constructs describing the same psychological phenomena side by side, and different psychological phenomena that are reflected by the same latent construct. Hagger called them déjà-variables, which lead to a decreasing validity of measurements and inhibit a deeper understanding of psychological phenomena. To overcome this problem, I suggest a shift of theoretical and epistemological perspective on latent constructs. One main point is the explicit consideration of latent constructs as mental representations, which change objects and are changed by objects via assimilative and accommodative processes. The explicit orientation toward assimilation and accommodation allows the control of normally automatized processes that influence our understanding of psychological phenomena and their corresponding latent constructs. I argue that assimilation and accommodation are part of our research practice anyway and cause the mentioned problems. For example, taking a measurement is an assimilative process, and thus a high measurement error should lead to an increase of accommodative processes. Taking into account these considerations, I suggest consequences for research practices, for individual researchers and for the philosophy of science.

Future Objectivity Requires Perspective and Forward Combinatorial Meta-Analyses

“…There is an agreement that it is barely possible to avoid the degrees of freedom when deciding how to frame a study or meta-study. However, as one of the reviewers of this manuscript mentioned, researchers' profound subject matter knowledge helps to use these degrees of freedom in the interest of scientific progress, which goes in line with the argumentation of Hanfstingl (2019).…”

“…Freese and Peterson (2018) argue that single study results often are influenced by scientists' "scientific selves, " which, in turn, are affected by different interests, such as emotional or economic. From a cognitive angle, Hanfstingl (2019) mentions the scientificselves-biases in the work with latent constructs, emphasizing that these problems are grounded to a certain degree on our cognitive automatisms. Meta-analyses, unlike single studies, can reveal statistical effects that would otherwise go undetected.…”

“…The troubleshooting process is intense, but also urgent. The more latent constructs, statistical sophistication, and implicit probability calculations entered the methodological logic of psychological science, and the more theoretical (Fiedler et al, 2021), metrological (Uher, 2018(Uher, , 2020(Uher, , 2021, contextual (Borgstede and Scholz, 2021), and epistemological (Meehl, 2009;Hanfstingl, 2019) considerations were ignored, the greater the problem became (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, 2015).…”

Psychometrics is not measurement: Unraveling a fundamental misconception in quantitative psychology and the complex network of its underlying fallacies.

“…The construal of constructs allowed scientists to turn abstract ideas into entities, thereby making them conceptually accessible to empirical study. But this entification misguided psychologists to overlook their constructed nature (Slaney & Garcia, 2015) and to focus primarily on methodological and methodical approaches, ignoring the necessity to develop their epistemological foundations as well (Hanfstingl, 2019).…”

Functions of units, scales and quantitative data: Fundamental differences in numerical traceability between sciences

“…The demand for transparent and transferable quantitative information about human capital is growing (Fisher 2009)-as are discussions about replication crises (Hanfstingl 2019;Nosek et al 2015), validity (Buntins et al 2017;Newton 2012) and quantitative methods in psychology and social sciences (Michell 2003;Tafreshi et al 2016;Thomas 2020;Uher 2021cUher , 2021dValsiner 2017;Westerman 2014). Current debates primarily concern issues of data analysis (e.g., significance testing, effect sizes and robust statistics (Epskamp 2019;Open Science Collaboration 2015).…”