Synthesis of reliability and validation practices used with the Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Coronel, Mauricio Villalobos

doi:10.14288/1.0165784

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some types of validity evidence are reported much more frequently than others. Researchers typically rely on the internal structure of the measure and its relations to other variables, and neglect response processes and consequences of testing (Cizek et al, 2008;Hogan & Agnello, 2004;Villalobos Coronel, 2015). Additionally, many studies report a reliability coefficient as the only "validity" evidence (Flake et al, 2017) but this is not actually an indication of validity (Schmitt, 1996).…”

Section: Over-reliance On Quantitative Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations

Clarke,

Alley,

Ghai

et al. 2024

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The replication crisis and subsequent credibility revolution in psychology have highlighted many suboptimal research practices such as p‐hacking, overgeneralizing, and a lack of transparency. These practices may have been employed reflexively but upon reflection, they are hard to defend. We suggest that current practices for reporting and discussing study limitations are another example of an area where there is much room for improvement. In this article, we call for more rigorous reporting of study limitations in social and personality psychology articles, and we offer advice for how to do this. We recommend that authors consider what the best argument is against their conclusions (which we call the “steel‐person principle”). We consider limitations as threats to construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion validity (Shadish et al., 2002), and offer some examples for better practice reporting of common study limitations. Our advice has its own limitations — both our representation of current practices and our recommendations are largely based on our own metaresearch and opinions. Nevertheless, we hope that we can prompt researchers to write more deeply and clearly about the limitations of their research, and to hold each other to higher standards when reviewing each other's work.

show abstract

Section: Over-reliance On Quantitative Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations

Clarke,

Alley,

Ghai

et al. 2024

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, 2014) advises researchers to collect many sources of validity evidence (content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of testing). In practice, however, researchers rely mainly on internal structure and relations to other variables (Cizek et al, 2008;Hogan & Agnello, 2004;Villalobos Coronel, 2015). Even more troubling, many studies report a reliability coefficient as the only 'validity' evidence (Flake et al, 2017), and this is not, in fact, an indication of validity at all (Schmitt, 1996).…”

Section: Over-reliance On Quantitative Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Looking Our Limitations in the Eye: A Call for More Thorough and Honest Reporting of Study Limitations

Clarke,

Alley,

Ghai

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limitations are an inherent part of the research process. Looking these limitations in the eye is no easy task, but it is important if the field of psychology wishes to be considered a credible science. Current practices for reporting limitations in psychology leave much room for improvement. Concrete guidance for discussing specific limitations is lacking. The aim of this tutorial is to enable psychology researchers to “own” their research limitations (inspired by Whitcomb et al., 2017). We provide general recommendations, such as the ‘steel-person principle’ (reflecting on what the best argument is against your conclusions), and specific advice for different types of limitations. We assembled a team with expertise in assessing various aspects of validity, and structured this tutorial around recommendations for discussing common threats to construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion validity (Shadish et al., 2002). Our goal is to prompt psychologists to write more deeply and clearly about the limitations of their research, and to hold each other to higher standards when reviewing each other’s work. A major limitation of this tutorial is that our advice risks being applied formulaically, and as a substitute for critical thinking about limitations. Further, this tutorial should not replace efforts to prevent or reduce research limitations in the first place. Instead, readers should use this tutorial as a starting point for reflecting on their limitations which should be thoughtfully incorporated in all relevant conclusions throughout their paper.

show abstract

Synthesis of reliability and validation practices used with the Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Cited by 2 publications

References 51 publications

Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations

Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations

Looking Our Limitations in the Eye: A Call for More Thorough and Honest Reporting of Study Limitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About