Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book critically examines the historical and philosophical foundations of construct validity theory (CVT), and how these have and continue to inform and constrain the conceptualization of validity and its application in research. CVT has had an immense impact on how researchers in the behavioural sciences conceptualize and approach their subject matter. Yet, there is equivocation regarding the foundations of the CVT framework as well as ambiguities concerning the nature of the 'constructs' that are its raison d'etre. The book is organized in terms of three major parts that speak, respectively, to the historical, philosophical, and pragmatic dimensions of CVT. The primary objective is to provide researchers and students with a critical lens through which a deeper understanding may be gained of both the utility and limitations of CVT and the validation practices to which it has given rise.\"-- Back cover.

Cognitive assessment is an important component of applied psychology, but limited access and high costs make these evaluations challenging. This study aimed to examine the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) to create personalized artificial intelligence-based verbal comprehension tests (AI-BVCTs) for assessing verbal intelligence, in contrast with traditional assessment methods based on standardized norms. We used a within-participants design, comparing scores obtained from AI-BVCTs with those from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) verbal comprehension index (VCI). In total, 8 Hebrew-speaking participants completed both the VCI and AI-BVCT, the latter being generated using the LLM Claude. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) demonstrated strong agreement between AI-BVCT and VCI scores (Claude: CCC=.75, 90% CI 0.266-0.933; GPT-4: CCC=.73, 90% CI 0.170-0.935). Pearson correlations further supported these findings, showing strong associations between VCI and AI-BVCT scores (Claude: r=.84, P<.001; GPT-4: r=.77, P=.02). No statistically significant differences were found between AI-BVCT and VCI scores (P>.05). These findings support the potential of LLMs to assess verbal intelligence. The study attests to the promise of AI-based cognitive tests in increasing the accessibility and affordability of assessment processes, enabling personalized testing. The research also raises ethical concerns regarding privacy and overreliance on AI in clinical work. Further research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to establish the validity and reliability of this approach and develop more accurate scoring procedures.

This article explores several issues surrounding the American Psychological Association's accredited doctoral training of clinical psychologists. There is a movement to combat the use of psychiatric drugs with psycho-social treatments. However, as will be examined, such treatments seem to not work well. If there is to be a sincere challenge to the growing use of toxic psychiatric drugs then better psycho-social treatment efficacy rates are critical.

From its inception, psychology has sought recognition as a science, but, unfortunately, this is not happening, especially in the clinical arena. It is all too often referred to as \"junk science.\" Eloquent arguments are constantly made defending psychology as different because it is dealing with unknowns, such as the mind and the soul. However, the fact remains that psychology is not progressing well, with extremely poor treatment efficacy rates and with its tenacious clinging to psychological tests that are repeatedly shown to be unreliable and invalid. Thus, psychology is not policing itself. However, change and reformation may be forced on it because the federal courts and 33 state courts have based new laws for more rigorous standards for trial testimony, and it appears that the new laws are aimed at cleansing the courts of \"junk science,\" namely, psychological testimony. This article reviews the changes that thus far few psychologists, lawyers, or even judges know about. However, slowly the new laws will permeate the courts and perhaps exert a strong influence for psychology to adapt.

Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ≥ 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factorial models from previous studies with a method-factor model which especially accounts for the wording of the items. Reliability was analyzed. Convergent validity was measured by correlating BRS scores with mental health measures, coping, social support, and optimism. Reliability was good (α = .85, ω = .85 for both samples). The method-factor model showed excellent model fit (sample 1: χ2/df = 7.544; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; sample 2: χ2/df = 1.166; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01) which was significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2(4) = 172.71, p < .001) or the two-factor model (Δχ2(3) = 31.16, p < .001). The BRS was positively correlated with well-being, social support, optimism, and the coping strategies active coping, positive reframing, acceptance, and humor. It was negatively correlated with somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, depression, and the coping strategies religion, denial, venting, substance use, and self-blame. To conclude, our results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the BRS as well as the unidimensional structure of the scale once method effects are accounted for.

Although there are surely multiple contributors to the replication crisis in psychology, one largely unappreciated source is a neglect of basic principles of measurement. We consider 4 sacred cows-widely shared and rarely questioned assumptions-in psychological measurement that may fuel the replicability crisis by contributing to questionable measurement practices. These 4 sacred cows are: (a) we can safely rely on the name of a measure to infer its content; (b) reliability is not a major concern for laboratory measures; (c) using measures that are difficult to collect obviates the need for large sample sizes; and (d) convergent validity data afford sufficient evidence for construct validity. For items a and d, we provide provisional data from recent psychological journals that support our assertion that such beliefs are prevalent among authors. To enhance the replicability of psychological science, researchers will need to become vigilant against erroneous assumptions regarding both the psychometric properties of their measures and the implications of these psychometric properties for their studies. Bien qu'il soit certain que de nombreux facteurs contribuent à la crise de la reproductibilité en psychologie, l'un d'entre eux, largement méconnu, est la négligence des principes de base de la mesure. Nous examinons quatre principes « intouchables » de la mesure en psychologie - des hypothèses largement diffusées et rarement remises en question - qui, en rendant les pratiques de mesure discutables, peuvent alimenter la crise de la reproductibilité. Ces quatre intouchables sont les suivants : (A) nous pouvons nous fier en toute confiance au nom d'une mesure pour en déduire le contenu; (b) la fiabilité n'est pas une préoccupation majeure pour les mesures en laboratoire; (c) le recours à des mesures qui sont difficiles à recueillir écarte le besoin d'échantillons de taille plus importante; (d) des données convergentes sur la validité constituent des éléments de preuve suffisants de la validité conceptuelle. Pour les éléments a et d, nous fournissons des données provisoires issues de revues de psychologie récentes qui soutiennent notre affirmation selon laquelle de telles croyances prévalent parmi les auteurs. Afin d'améliorer la reproductibilité de la science de la psychologie, les chercheurs devront être vigilants face aux suppositions erronées concernant les propriétés psychométriques de ces mesures et aux répercussions de ces propriétés psychométriques pour leurs études. Public Significance Statement This article outlines four widely held but erroneous measurement assumptions that may adversely affect the accuracy and replicability of psychological findings. The effects of questionable measurement practices stemming from these assumptions are discussed, and new data bearing on the prevalence of these assumptions in academic journals are presented. In addition, this article offers several potential remedies that researchers and journals can implement to improve the measurement of psychological constructs.

The field of psychological injury and law is marked by use of psychometrically sound validity tests that use empirically derived cut scores to determine the credibility of cognitive deficits and psychological symptoms in forensic and related disability assessments (FDRA). Performance validity tests (PVTs) are used in neuropsychological/cognitive assessments to determine the extent to which test scores reflect true ability levels. Symptom validity tests (SVTs) are designed to evaluate the credibility of self-reported level of excessive report in behaviors, emotions, and thoughts. They monitor the rate of endorsement of rare, absurd, impossible, and improbable symptoms. The authors argue for a 30% rule as a tentative multivariate threshold for invalid presentation (with provisos). In other words, failure on about one third of the PVTs/SVTs administered should be required before deeming the overall profile non-credible to control for the threat of inflated false positive error due to the increasing number of instruments used. Typically, workers in the field use the multivariate threshold of ≥ 2 PVT failures in FDRA to deem an entire profile invalid, without considering the number of tests administered. The proposed 30% rule accommodates this face validity question. It is tentatively proposed as a starting point for future research, and with sufficient empirical support, a general guideline for FDRA.

The history of colonization contributed to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders becoming one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia. The multiple social inequalities, and therefore the constant insecurities for many about low income, poor living conditions, unemployment, and discrimination, generate chronic stress in this population. In the Baby Teeth Talk Study, an oral-health randomized controlled trial, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14) was administered to 367 pregnant Aboriginal women at baseline. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the PSS-14 in an Aboriginal population. The study analysed: (a) model fit; (b) dimensionality; (c) local dependence; (d) differential item functioning; (e) threshold ordering and item fit; (f) targeting; (g) reliability; and (h) criterion validity. The dimensionality analysis indicated a two-factor structure, with negatively and positively worded items clustering together and 21.7% (95% Agresti-Coull C.I. [17.8%, 26.2%]) statistically significant t-tests between the persons' estimates. After the creation of composite items, the revised Perceived Distress (χ2 (21) = 11.74, p = 0.946) and Perceived Coping (χ2 (28) = 17.63, p = 0.935) subscales fitted the Rasch model. Reliability was modest (PersonSeparationIndexdistress = 0.72; PersonSeparationIndexcoping = 0.76). The latent correlation between the Perceived Distress and Perceived Coping subscales was r = 0.14. It is hypothesized that the social inequalities experienced by the Aboriginal population are so pronounced that even Aboriginal pregnant women that perceived themselves as coping well with life challenges ended up endorsing items regarding high levels of stress. The present research showed that a revised PSS-14 is a culturally valid and modestly reliable psychological instrument to measure stress in a population of pregnant Aboriginal women in Australia.

Stress resilience is a dynamic process shaped by the interaction between demands and adaptive resources. Existing measures assess stress and resilience as separate constructs, limiting their use in digital health and workplace interventions. An integrated measure capturing both domains is needed. We developed and validated the WONE Index, a multidimensional stress resilience tool designed to measure both current stress load and adaptive resources among full-time working adults. We developed the 32-item WONE Index through literature review, expert consultation, and iterative refinement to assess stress load and resilience resources across behavioral, cognitive, and social domains. Phase 1 (N=1005; United States- or United Kingdom-based full-time employees) evaluated the initial item pool using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to establish the preliminary factor structure and assess reliability and validity. Phase 2 (N=306; United States-based adults) expanded underperforming domains, refined items, and tested incremental validity, test-retest reliability, and measurement invariance. Data were collected online through CloudResearch (Connect) and Prolific (Prolific Academic Ltd) using secure survey platforms. Phase 1 supported a 2-domain structure: a Stress Load factor (Work Stress, Personal Stress, and Burnout) and a Resilience Resources factor (Emotion Regulation and Coping, Social Connectedness, and Sleep). Model fit indices were excellent (comparative fit index, CFI=0.95; Tucker-Lewis index, TLI=0.94; and root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA=0.05). Phase 2 replicated and extended this structure, expanding Resilience Resources into 7 domains (adding Purpose and Prosociality, Physical Activity, Dietary Intake, and Perseverative Thinking). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 2-domain structure, comprising a higher-order Stress Load factor with 3 subdomains (Work Stress, Personal Stress, and Burnout) and a higher-order Resilience Resources factor with 7 subdomains (Emotion Regulation and Coping, Social Connectedness, Purpose and Prosociality, Sleep, Physical Activity, Dietary Intake, and Perseverative Thinking). The Stress Load model demonstrated excellent fit (χ²33=64.18; P=.01; CFI=0.99; TLI=0.98; RMSEA=0.06; and standardized root mean square residual=0.05), and the Resilience Resources model also fit well (χ²443=745.20, P<.001; CFI=0.94; TLI=0.94; RMSEA=0.05; and standardized root mean square residual=0.06). All subscales showed strong internal consistency (composite reliability: mean 0.84, SD 0.10; range 0.74-0.93) and excellent test-retest reliability over 3 weeks (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.77-0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93). The index showed strong convergent validity (r=0.73 with Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and r=-0.66 with Perceived Stress Scale-4) and explained additional variance beyond established measures in predicting depression, anxiety, and well-being (ΔR²=0.07-0.11; P<.001). The WONE Index provides a psychometrically robust tool for assessing stress resilience capacity in working adults. Its integrated structure captures dynamic relationships between stress exposure and resilience resources, thereby supporting personalized intervention delivery in digital health platforms and organizational well-being programs.

We compared the psychometric qualities of seven indirect attitude measures across three attitude domains (race, politics, and self-esteem) with a large sample ( N  = 23,413). We compared the measures on internal consistency, sensitivity to known effects, relationships with indirect and direct measures of the same topic, the reliability and validity of single-category attitude measurement, their ability to detect meaningful variance among people with nonextreme attitudes, and their robustness to the exclusion of misbehaving or well-behaving participants. All seven indirect measures correlated with each other and with direct measures of the same topic. These relations were always weak for self-esteem, moderate for race, and strong for politics. This pattern suggests that some of the sources of variation in the reliability and predictive validity of the indirect measures is a function of the concepts rather than the methods. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Brief IAT (BIAT) showed the best overall psychometric quality, followed by the Go–No-Go association task, Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT), Affective Misattribution Procedure (AMP), Sorting Paired Features task, and Evaluative Priming. The AMP showed a steep decline in its psychometric qualities when people with extreme attitude scores were removed. Single-category attitude scores computed for the IAT and BIAT showed good relationships with other attitude measures but no evidence of discriminant validity between paired categories. The other measures, especially the AMP and ST-IAT, showed better evidence for discriminant validity. These results inform us on the validity of the measures as attitude assessments, but do not speak to the implicitness of the measured constructs.