In reply to Wilkes and Wilcox, the authors discuss the process by which convergent validity is investigated and relate it to the procedures adopted in their original article. They discuss the Wilkes and Wilcox study and question their assumptions concerning the “task complexity” of direct similarity and map (configuration) evaluation judgments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CooperLynn A.“Mental Rotation of Random Two Dimensional Shapes,”Cognitive Psychology, 7(January 1975), 20–43.
2.
GreenPaul E., and CarmoneFrank J.Multidimensional Scaling and Related Techniques in Marketing Analysis.Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1970.
3.
MacKayDavid B.“The Effect of Spatial Stimuli on the Estimation of Cognitive Maps,”Geographical Analysis, 7(October 1976), 439–52.
4.
ShepardRoger N.“Representation of Structure in Similarity Data: Problems and Prospects,”Psychometrika, 39(December 1974), 373–421.
5.
SteaDavid, and BlautJames M.“Some Preliminary Observations on Spatial Learning in School Children,” in DownsR. M., and SteaD., eds. Imageand Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior.Chicago: Aldine, 1973, 226–34.
6.
SummersJohn O., and MacKayDavid B.“On the Validity and Reliability of Direct Similarity Judgments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 13(August 1976), 289–95.
