Three common mainstream scale construction practices are based on both a faulty conception of concepts and on erroneous logical/statistical assumptions: (a) two states of affairs (or item responses designating same) correlating means that they are indicative of the same concept; (b) one and the same concept cannot designate both of two mutually incompatible states of affairs (or item responses designating same); and (c) using measures consisting of a cloud of correlated, but not necessarily conceptually coherent, variables entitles one to report results about a target concept (e.g., “conscientiousness”) even though their referent is not real-world instantiations of this concept, and even though the resulting construct routinely fails to capture anything close to established consensual usage of this target concept, thus resulting in potentially misleading conclusions. Finally, and more positively, existing research methods and findings that capture the actual concepts that people employ when they think and act in their worlds, several of which are described in the article, are argued as vastly preferable ways to establish concept meanings for incorporation into psychometric measures.
American Psychological Association. (n.d.a). Face validity. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved February 10, 2023, from https://dictionary.apa.org/face-validity
BergnerR. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000057
BergnerR.BunfordN. (2017). Mental disorder is a disability concept, not a behavioral one. An empirical investigation. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 24(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.0004
BinningJ. F.BarrettG. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.478
9.
BorosR. M.BergnerR. M.LanninD. G. (2021). Belief in determinism, interpersonal objectification, and dark triad personality traits [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
10.
BorsboomD. (2008). Latent variable theory, measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspectives. Measurement, 6(1–2), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035497
11.
BorsboomD.CramerA. O. J.KievitR. A.ScholtenA. Z.FranićS. (2009). The end of construct validity. In LissitzR. W. (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 135–170). Information Age.
12.
BretscherF.BergnerR. (1991). Relational qualities as factors in mate selection decisions. In RobertsM.BergnerR. (Eds.), Clinical topics: Adolescent-family problems, bulimia, chronic mental illness, and mania (pp. 107–126). Descriptive Psychology Press.
13.
BrownJ. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Prentice Hall Regents.
14.
ColmanA. M. (2006). Face validity. In ColmanA. M. (Ed.), Oxford dictionary of psychology (2nd ed., p. 272). Oxford University Press.
DavisK. E.ToddM. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relationship description. In DuckS.PerlmanD. (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17–38). SAGE.
FeherA.VernonP. (2021). Looking beyond the big five: A selective review of alternatives to the big five model of personality. Personality & Individual Differences, 169, Article 110002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110002
22.
FehrB. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.557
23.
FehrB. (2006). The prototype approach to studying love. In SternbergR.WeisK. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 225–248). Yale University Press.
HackerP. M. S. (2010). Human nature: The categorial framework. John Wiley & Sons.
27.
HarréR.TissawM. (2005). Wittgenstein and psychology: A practical guide (1st ed.). Routledge.
28.
HassebrauckM. (1997). Cognitions of relationship quality: A prototype analysis of their structure and consequences. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00137.x
29.
HegiK.BergnerR. (2010). What is love? An empirically-based essentialist account. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(5), 620–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510369605
30.
HospersJ. (1997). An introduction to philosophical analysis (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
31.
JohnO.NaumannL.SotoC. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford.
32.
JohnO.SrivastavaS. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
33.
KelleyH. (1983). Love and commitment. In KelleyH.BerscheidE.ChristensenA.HarveyJ. H.HustonT. L.LevingerG.McClintockE.PeplauL. A.PetersonD. R. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 265–314). W. H. Freeman.
34.
LamiellJ. (2019). Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics. Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
LovaszN.SlaneyK. (2013). What makes a hypothetical construct “hypothetical”? Tracing the origins and uses of the “hypothetical construct” concept in psychological science. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.005
36.
MacCorquodaleK.MeehlP. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056029
37.
MaraunM. (1998). Measurement as a normative practice: Implications of Wittgenstein’s philosophy for measurement in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8(4), 435–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398084001
38.
MartinJ.SugarmanJ.HickinbottomS. (2010). Persons: Understanding psychological selfhood and agency. Springer.
39.
McCraeR.CostaP. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In BoyleG.MatthewsG.SaklofskeD. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 273–294). SAGE.
MohsenT.DennickR. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
SternbergR. J. (1988). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. Basic Books.
49.
SternbergR. J. (2006). A duplex theory of love. In SternbergR.WeisK. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 184–199). Yale University Press.
50.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8001_18
51.
TafreshiD. (2022). Sense and nonsense in psychological measurement: A case of problem and method passing one another by. Theory & Psychology, 32(1), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543211049371
52.
VandenBosG. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association.
