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

Primacy of theory? Exploring perspectives on validity in conceptual psychometrics

Several conceptions of validity have emphasized the contingency of validity on theory. Here we revisit several contributions to the discourse on the concept of validity, which we consider particularly influential or insightful. Despite differences in metatheory, both Cronbach and Meehl's construct validity, and Borsboom, Mellenbergh and van Heerden's early concept of validity regard validity as a criterion for successful measurement and thus, as crucial for the soundness of psychological science. Others, such as Borgstede and Eggert, regard recourses to validity as an appeal to an (unscientific) folk psychology. Instead, they advocate theory-based measurement. It will be demonstrated that these divergent positions converge in their view of psychological theory as indispensable for the soundness of psychological measurement. However, the formulation of the concept (and scope) of scientific theory differs across the presented conceptions of validity. These differences can be at least partially attributed to three disparities in metatheoretical and methodological stances. The first concerns the question of the structure of scientific theories. The second concerns the question of psychology's subject matter. The third regards whether, and if, to which extent, correlations can be indicative of causality and therefore point toward validity. These results indicate that metatheory may help to structure the discourse on the concept of validity by revealing the contingencies the concrete positions rely on.

Epistemic circularity and measurement validity in quantitative psychology: insights from Fechner's psychophysics

The validity of psychological measurement is crucially connected to a peculiar form of epistemic circularity. This circularity can be a threat when there are no independent ways to assess whether a certain procedure is actually measuring the intended target of measurement. This paper focuses on how Fechner addressed the measurement circularity that emerged in his psychophysical research. First, I show that Fechner's approach to the problem of circular measurement involved a core idealizing assumption of a shared human physiology. Second, I assess Fechner's approach to this issue against the backdrop of his own epistemology of measurement and the measurement context of his time. Third, I claim that, from a coherentist and historically-situated perspective, Fechner's quantification can be regarded as a first successful step of a longer-term quantification process. To conclude, I draw from these insights some general epistemological reflections that are relevant to current quantitative psychology.

The Dimensionality of the Brief COPE Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Brief COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) is a frequently used questionnaire assessing 14 theoretically derived coping mechanisms, but psychometric research has suggested inconsistent results concerning its factor structure. The aim of this study was to investigate primary and secondary order factor structures of the Brief COPE during the COVID-19 pandemic by testing 11 different models by confirmatory factor analyses and to assess differences between sex, age groups, and relationship status. Altogether, 529 respondents from Austria and Germany participated in a web-based survey. Results supported the originally hypothesized 14-factor structure but did not support previously described higher-order structures. However, bass-ackwards analyses suggested systematic overlap between different factors, which might have contributed to different factor solutions in previous research. Measurement invariance across sex, age groups, and relationship status could be confirmed. Findings suggest that cultural and situational aspects as well as the functional level should be considered in research on theoretical framing of coping behavior.

Future Objectivity Requires Perspective and Forward Combinatorial Meta-Analyses

This manuscript contributes to a future definition of objectivity by bringing together recent statements in epistemology and methodology. It outlines how improved objectivity can be achieved by systematically incorporating multiple perspectives, thereby improving the validity of science. The more result-biasing perspectives are known, the more a phenomenon of interest can be disentangled from these perspectives. Approaches that call for the integration of perspective into objectivity at the epistemological level or that systematically incorporate different perspectives at the statistical level already exist and are brought together in the manuscript. Recent developments in research methodology, such as transparency, reproducibility of research processes, pre-registration of studies, or free access to raw data, analysis strategies, and syntax, promote the explication of perspectives because they make the entire research process visible. How the explication of perspectives can be done practically is outlined in the manuscript. As a result, future research programs can be organized in such a way that meta-analyses and meta-meta-analyses can be conducted not only backward but forward and prospectively as a regular and thus well-prepared part of objectification and validation processes.

Assimilation and Accommodation

Abstract. This research provides a systematic overview of psychological areas using assimilation and accommodation to explain development and adaptation processes from 1998 to 2018. We primarily aimed to identify the main psychological research areas connected to assimilation and accommodation. We used assimilation and accommodation as keywords to extract data from SpringerLink, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES. Of 500 articles, 473 were included in the analysis. Ten categories were identified to allow systematization along with different research areas and development trajectories. The meanings of these terms were analyzed in terms of scientific impact, their connection to Piaget and Baldwin, application, and research methods. Our analysis has distilled the most driving and scientifically relevant approaches to assimilation and accommodation within psychological research, with the work of Baldwin and Piaget influencing practically all views. Thus, we have identified a common understanding of assimilation and accommodation, although the direction of the adaptation process should be made explicit in the future. Based on our analyses, we were able to identify white spots on the research map that should be focused on in future work: the need to better understand the interdependence and synchronicity of both processes, the connection to affects and emotions, and the potential co-research with artificial intelligence.

Replication and the Establishment of Scientific Truth

The idea of replication is based on the premise that there are empirical regularities or universal laws to be replicated and verified, and the scientific method is adequate for doing it. Scientific truth, however, is not absolute but relative to time, context, and the method used. Time and context are inextricably intertwined in that time (e.g., Christmas Day vs. New Year's Day) creates different contexts for behaviors and contexts create different experiences of time, rendering psychological phenomena inherently variable. This means that internal and external conditions fluctuate and are different in a replication study vs. the original. Thus, a replication experiment is just another empirical investigation in an ongoing effort to establish scientific truth. Neither the original nor a replication is the final arbiter of whether or not something exists. Discovered patterns need not be permanent laws of human behavior proven by the pinpoint statistical verification through replication. To move forward, phenomenon replications are needed to investigate phenomena in different ways, forms, contexts, and times. Such investigations look at phenomena not just in terms the magnitude of their effects but also by their frequency, duration, and intensity in labs and real life. They will also shed light on the extent to which lab manipulations may make many phenomena subjectively conscious events and effects (e.g., causal attributions) when they are nonconsciously experienced in real life, or vice versa. As scientific knowledge in physics is temporary and incomplete, should it be any surprise that science can only provide "temporary winners" for psychological knowledge of human behavior?