Methods for analyzing the multitrait-multimethod matrix are reviewed and the results of their application to a classic data set are compared. It is shown that different analysis methods can yield different validity conclusions, and that the results obtained are partly dependent on the subjective judgments of the users. It is proposed that several analysis methods should be used in tandem on each data set and their results should be examined for convergence. Multitrait-multimethod matrices should be examined in an exploratory as well as validity testing mode so as not to waste their rich data content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Althauser, R. P., Heberlein, T. A., and Scott, R. A.A causal assessment of validity: The augmented multitrait-multimethod matrix . In H. J. Blalock, Jr. (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences. Chicago : Aldine-Atherton, 1971 , 374-399.
2.
Boruch, R. F. and Wolins, L.A procedure for estimation of trait, method, and error variance attributable to a measure. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1970, 30, 547-574.
3.
Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W.Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 81-105.
4.
Centra, J. A.Validation by the multigroup-multiscale matrix: An adaptation of Campbell and Fiske's convergent and discriminant validational procedure. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT , 1971, 31, 675-683.
5.
Conger, A. J.Evaluation of multimethod factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 416-420.
6.
Fishbein, M.Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967, 477-492.
7.
Fiske, D. W.Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Jounal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1949, 44, 218-224.
8.
Gruvaeus, G. and Wainer, H.Two additions to hierarchical cluster analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1972, 25, 200-206.
9.
Jackson, D. N.Multimethod factor analysis in the evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 30-49.
10.
Johnson, S. C.Hierarchical clustering schemes . Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 241-254.
11.
Jöreskog, K. G.A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 183-202.
12.
Jöreskog, K. G.Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 1971, 36, 109-133.
13.
Krause, M. S.The implications of convergent and discriminant, validity data for instrument validation. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 179-186.
14.
Kruskal, J. B.Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical example. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115-129.
15.
Paisley, M. B., Collins, W. A., and Paisley, W. J.The convergent-discriminant matrix: Multitrait-multimethod logic extended to other research decisions. Unpublished paper. Stanford University, 1971.
16.
Ray, M. L.Final analysis of a multiple and unobtrusive field study of attitudes and behavior. Report on NIMH grant MH-17869-1 and NSF grant GS 2683, Stanford University , 1973.
17.
Shepard, R. N.A taxonomy of some principal types of data and of multi-dimensional methods for their analysis. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, and S. B. Nerlove, Multidimensional Scaling, Vol. 1. New York: Seminar, 1972 , 21-47.
18.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, L.Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
19.
Wers, C. E., Jöreskog, K. G., and Linn, R. L.A multitrait-multimethod model for studying growth. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1972, 32, 655-678.
