Clarifying Construct Validity: Definitions,Processes, and Models

Despite definitions in standard sources, personnel managers, psychologists, and psychometricians persistently encounter problems that are best referred to as the ambiguous nature of validity. The purpose of this article is to pro- vide an overview of construct validity and personnel testing, to demonstrate its practical utility, and to clarify with concrete examples certain theories and models, as well as to illustrate the meaning of the terminology used by com- mentators on the topic. A brief historical overview of testing and validation is presented; the progress of construct validity and its acceptance by various sec- tors of society is discussed parsimoniously in the section The Seven Wonders of Personnel Psychology. In the past, personnel psychologists have not done a very good job of understanding the constructs that underlie test perform- ance. Some new approaches can help to correct this. A process should be rou- tinely used on all tests in order to develop an understanding of the constructs that underlie performance on an employment test; only by knowing the cor- rect criterion and method of measuring it can we ascertain the intrinsic valid- ity of our measures.     

Children's conceptions of mental illness: A naïve theory approach

This paper reports two studies that investigated children's conceptions of mental illness using a naïve theory approach, drawing upon a conceptual framework for analysing illness representations which distinguishes between the identity, causes, consequences, curability, and timeline of an illness. The studies utilized semi‐structured interviewing and card selection tasks to assess 6‐ to 11‐year‐old children's conceptions of the causes and consequences (Study 1) and the curability and timeline (Study 2) of different mental and physical illnesses/ailments. The studies revealed that, at all ages, the children held coherent causal–explanatory ideas about the causes, consequences, curability, and timeline of both mental and physical illnesses/ailments. However, while younger children tended to rely on their knowledge of common physical illnesses when thinking about mental illnesses, providing contagion and contamination explanations of cause, older children demonstrated differences in their thinking about mental and physical illnesses. No substantial gender differences were found in the children's thinking. It is argued that children hold coherent conceptions of mental illness at all ages, but that mental illness only emerges as an ontologically distinct conceptual domain by the end of middle childhood.