Nomological consistency: A comprehensive test of the equivalence of different trait indicators for the same constructs

Factor structure and measurement invariance of the psychosocial risk factors inventory of NOM-035-STPS-2018

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the Inventory for the Identification and Analysis of Psychosocial Risk Factors (IIA-PRF) of Reference Guide III proposed in NOM-035-STPS-2018. A total of 2,149 workers in Baja California, Mexico's industrial and education-government sectors, were administered an online inventory version. Preliminary analyses were performed, as well as a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based on two models proposed by the standard itself: an eight-factor model (8-FM) and a four-factor model (4-FM). Likewise, based on the results and with the recommendations of the specialists, a threefactor model (3-FM) was proposed. In addition, nested model sequencing methods were subsequently applied to validate the invariance between the origin of the activity. The dimensionality of 3-FM was found to have adequate fit values according to a-priori established criteria. It is concluded that the IIAPRF does not have the reliability and validity parameters necessary to support interpretations, uses and consequences based on the theoretical structure established by NOM-035-STPS-2018 and that, although the 3-FM presents better reliability and validity indices, it is not invariant in terms of the origin of the activity. Finally, we discuss the implications and recommend reviewing and adjusting the design of the IIAPRF items to extend the measurement of invariance to other groups of relevance for decision making in the improvement of the work environment.

Conceptualization, Measurement, and Validation of Effort- and Valence-Based Just World Beliefs

Abstract. In this research, we propose that belief in a just world (BJW) can be divided into two distinct beliefs: one addressing the notion that efforts are rewarded, that is, effort-based BJW, and another maintaining that the valence associated with moral character leads to particular consequences, that is, valence-based BJW (e.g., good people are rewarded and bad people are punished). We used culturally relevant proverbs to design measures in German and Chinese. Samples of college students and working adults from both countries were collected to assess the reliability, factor structure, validity, and the nomological consistency of the newly developed measures. Both measures demonstrated strong evidence of the existence of and distinction between effort- and valence-based BJW, and they displayed unique patterns in predicting different variables beyond the effect of personal BJW and BJW for others, which may elucidate the precise justice beliefs related to different phenomena.

A Critical Evaluation of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ)

The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) is an 8-item self-report measure of reflective functioning that is presumed to capture individual differences in hypo- and hypermentalizing. Despite its broad acceptance by the field, we argue that the validity of the measure is not well-established. The current research elaborates on problems of the RFQ related to its item content, scoring procedure, dimensionality, and associations with psychopathology. We tested these considerations across three large clinical and non-clinical samples from Germany and the US (total N = 2289). In a first study, we found that the RFQ may assess a single latent dimension related to hypomentalizing but is rather unlikely to capture maladaptive forms of hypermentalizing. Moreover, the RFQ exhibited very strong associations with measures of personality pathology, while associations with measures of symptom distress were less strong. In a second preregistered study focused on convergent and discriminant validity, however, a commonality analysis indicated that associations with indicators of personality pathology are inflated because some of the RFQ items tap into emotional lability and impulsivity rather than mentalizing. Our findings demonstrate limitations of the RFQ. We discuss key challenges in assessing mentalizing via self-report.

Extrinsic Convergent Validity Evidence to Prevent Jingle and Jangle Fallacies

In psychology, there have been vast creative efforts in proposing new constructs and developing measures to assess them. Less effort has been spent in investigating construct overlap to prevent bifurcated literatures, wasted research efforts, and jingle-jangle fallacies. For example, researchers could gather validity evidence to evaluate if two measures with the same label actually assess different constructs (jingle fallacy), or if two measures with different labels actually assess the same construct (jangle fallacy). In this paper, we discuss the concept of extrinsic convergent validity, a source of validity evidence demonstrated when two measures of the same construct, or two measures of seemingly different constructs, have comparable correlations with external criteria. We introduce a formal approach to obtain extrinsic convergent validity evidence using tests of dependent correlations and evaluate the tests using Monte Carlo simulations. Also, we illustrate the methods by examining the overlap between the self-control and grit constructs, and the overlap among seven seemingly different measures of the connectedness to nature construct. Finally, we discuss how extrinsic convergent validity evidence supplements other sources of evidence that support validity arguments of construct overlap.

The "Quantifying Construct Validity" Procedure: Its Role, Value, Interpretations, and Computation

The current article enhances the test validation process by addressing important issues with the quantifying construct validity (QCV) procedure. The QCV procedure is intended to help researchers systematically and objectively evaluate the degree to which a pattern of convergent and discriminant validity correlations correspond to a priori hypotheses. Although the QCV procedure holds promise as a psychometric tool and has enjoyed some use, at least three factors have likely limited the frequency and accuracy of its use-questions regarding its role and utility in test validation, a lack of clarity about its key concepts, and a lack of integration with widely available statistical software. We address these important issues and provide psychometrically grounded recommendations for applying the QCV procedure. This work facilitates the understanding, computation, and useful application of the QCV procedure, and ultimately it is intended to enhance work in test validation.