Constructs, operational definition, and operational analysis

We argue that a certain picture of the relationship between language and the world informed Meehl’s outlook on how science worked. That picture authorized talk about constructs and has led to construct proliferation and other problems. Operational analysis offers an alternative view and suggests that a major shortcoming of soft psychology is its lack of disciplined limits on acceptable verbal behavior.     

When Stereotypes Become ‘Scientific’ Statements: Dealing with Gender Issues

The theoretical analysis by Watzlawik (Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 2009) demonstrates the scientific fragility of the constructs of masculinity and femininity based on the oversimplification and overlapping between three levels of analysis: group differences, inter-individual differences and intra-individual differences. Watzlawik presents fresh and relevant contributions in terms of methodological issues, especially about the construction of scientific generalizations. Here I focus on issues related to the transformation of stereotypes in statements about gender differences that claim to be ‘scientific’—outlining the socio-political agendas of such statements.

The role of subjective theories for leadership evaluation

This study reviews prior construct-related validity research in assessment centres. Special focus is placed on disentangling possible explanations for the construct-related validity findings. The conclusion is that we now have a much better picture of the reasons behind the construct-related validity findings. Careful assessment centre design and high interrater reliability among assessors seem necessary albeit insufficient conditions to establish assessment centre construct-related validity. The nature of candidate performances is another key factor. This study next discusses how these empirical findings have changed how assessment centres are conceptualized (theoretical advancements framed in the application of trait activation theory), analysed (methodological advancements), and designed (practical advancements).     

Distinguishing Constructs from Variables in Designing Research

Current research practices often conflate theoretical constructs and explanatory hypotheses with variables and predicted effects, to the detriment of research progress. This has led to the use of procedures such as manipulation checks, mediation analysis, and boundary conditions predicated on the idea that matching constructs to variables is necessary to validate that a theory corresponds to an effect . An alternative perspective, Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), calls for designing research to exploit the power of distinguishing constructs from variables, hypotheses from predictions, and theory from effects. IBE calls for stating hypotheses (Hs) about construct‐to‐construct relationships and, separately, the predictions (Ps) about variable‐to‐variable effects that are explained by the hypotheses. In addition, articles should include disparate effects, a single explanation covering all studies, and a discussion of the use of the research in specific problem contexts. The application of IBE is illustrated with research investigating when judgments are based on a feeling about the ease of information retrieval versus the information content itself.     

Constructs of physical activity behaviour in children: The usefulness of Social Cognitive Theory

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among several Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2004) constructs (e.g., self-efficacy) and children’s physical activity behaviours.

Design

Children from six elementary schools (N = 479) in grades 4th to 6th from five different school districts in the Southwestern USA participated in this study by completing a sociocognitive instrument as well as wearing a pedometer for five school days.

Methods

Previously validated scales were combined and administered to all children in order to examine the relationships among five constructs (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, social support, barriers, and goals) and physical activity participation was measured via pedometer. Data analyses included a two-step approach with confirmatory factor analysis followed by structural equation modelling.

Results

The confirmatory factor analyses indicated an adequate fit of the specified model. The structural model fit statistics also suggested that the data fit the specified model: χ² (8, N = 476) = 24.44, p = 0.00, χ²/df = 3.06, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07. The model explained 15% of the variance in social support, 11% of the variance in goals, 11% of the variance in barriers, 9% of the variance in outcome expectations, and 2% of the variance in physical activity. Self-efficacy was a strong predictor of total social support, total number of barriers, and outcome expectations.

Conclusions

This study supports the use of Social Cognitive Theory in understanding the constructs of physical activity behaviour in children, however, very little variance in behaviours was explained. There is a need to also investigate environmental influences on children’s decisions to be physically active.