Some Guidelines for Insuring Conceptual Clarity

8/19/2019 Some Guidelines for Insuring Conceptual Clarity

1/10

Construct Validity vs. Concept Validity

Edwin A. LockeUniversity of Maryland (Emeritus)

3! Canyon "id#e $rive

%estlake Villa#e& CA '!3!

el.* +!+ ,- '3!

elocker/smit/.umd.edu


2/10

Construct Validity vs. Concept Validity

Construct validity refers to “validating” your constructs based on their pattern of

correlations with other variables assumed to be indicators of or theoretically related to the

construct of interest (e.g., through nomological networks).There are three potential

problems with this approach to validation. The first is validating the dependent variables.

ow do you know what the most relevant !" is# $econd, how high does the

correlation(s) have to be to validate your construct# Third, if the correlations or pattern is

not what was predicted by your theory, how do you know if it is your measure(s) or your

theory that is wrong# %ather than trying to directly resolve these difficulties, & would like

to move the discussion to a deeper level'to the level of formulating and defining the

concepts themselves. & believe this is critical to achieving all forms of validity.

s someone who has been reviewing ournal articles for more than *+ years, &

estimate that about +- of the submissions & get suffer from problems of conceptual

clarity.

hat is the cause of this problem# & believe it is that people do not actually know

what a concept is, how concepts are (properly) formed, and how they relate to definitions.

/odern philosophers have convinced people that concepts and definitions are subective

(arbitrary) and we see the conse0uences repeatedly (1ocke, 2++*).

Lack of definitions

3ne conse0uence is the failure to define terms at all. $ome years ago & saw a book written

by a scholar who was very famous in 34. & asked him why he did not define his maor

concept in the book. e replied that he had encountered over 5++ different definitions in

2

2


3/10

the literature and simply gave up. The problem for the reader then was6 what is it that the

author means by the concept that his book is about#

Invalid concepts

There are concepts in the field that are simply invalid. 3ne e7ample is6 organizational

self-esteem. n organi8ation is an abstraction (a group of people with a common purpose)

and cannot have self9anything. hat people who wrote about this seemed to mean was6

how much does the organi8ation value me (a legitimate 0uestion)# (& have criti0ued the

concept of emotional intelligence elsewhere: 1ocke 2++;).

Disconnect between concepts and scales

There are concepts which are legitimate but which are used in a way that contradicts the

meaning of the concept. n e7ample is interactional justice.


4/10

!isconnects between concept names and the items in the scales that allegedly

represent them are e7tremely common. s a reviewer & have observed hundreds of

e7amples over the years.

Undue concept multiplication

The other side of this coin is to make separate scales where one would be e0ually logical

and much simpler. & have seen papers with four or five scales with similar meaning and

all fairly highly correlated and correlated almost identically with other variables. This

makes for a logical mess in the analyses because so many models are possible

(lthough this is a statistical issue, & want to point out something about what can

happen when there is a lot of covariation among variables when you put them into a

1isrel model or the like. n r of .;+ can turn to, say, 9.;+ solely because of the

covariation. This is called suppression (or a suppressor) variable but that has no

psychological meaning. &t is a statistical artifact.)

Putting different concepts under one label

ere the problem is that there is one overall label but measures of several very different

concepts under it. Consider servant leadership. =iven the name, relevant items would

imply the leader selflessly catering to the needs of subordinates, e.g., altruism. 4ut one

might find other sub9scales included under this label such as emotional support

(psychotherapy#), wisdom (knowledge), persuasion, and integrity. There is no way such

diverse concepts can be integrated under one conceptual label.

This is not to say that concepts should never be grouped but the grouping should

be based on the components having some element in common. >or e7ample, the common

?

?


5/10

element in Core elf-!valuations (self9esteem, self9efficacy, locus of control and

emotional stability) is6 m & ok# Can & deal with life@s e7igencies#

/aking a concept too broad obliterates its meaning, e.g. positive ps"cholog"

seems to encompass ust about everything good you can think of ($nyder A 1ope8 (2++2)

e.g., positive emotions and traits, strength, virtue, work, education, insight, love, growth,

and play

Different scales labeled as the same concept

!ifferent people may make up their own scales but call them by the same name, as has

happened in the case of goal orientation, a 0uasi9trait which can also function as a state.

The three traditional subscales (learning, 1=3: performance9prove, BB3: and

performance9avoid orientation, B3) made by one researchers do not always agree with

those of others because the subscales use some different items. >or e7ample, BB3 items

may refer to proving oneself or to actually beating others (competitiveness), even though

proving oneself does not re0uire competition. B3 items might refer to trying not to look

bad, not doing poorly or doing the least amount of work possible (la8iness).

3bective Concept >ormation

ow can we be more clear about our concepts# & will use here %and@s (5+)

theory of concepts as it is the most valid one that & know of.

%and@s philosophically original theory of concept begins with the premise that all

concepts derive from and are reducible to the perceptual level. 3ne observes that certain

entities are similar to one another and different from others (e.g., tables vs. chairs, the

difference being shape). 3ne then integrates chairs into a single mental unit: one isolates

chair from other entities like tables by a process of abstraction. 4ut how does it actually

;

;


6/10

work since, in reality, every chair or table is different from every other chair or table#

%and@s critical insight here was to show that the key process (done subconsciously) is

measurement omission. chair must fall within a certain range of measurements

involving shape but the measurements are not specified. 3ne can then hold chair or table

as a single mental unit but the concept includes an unlimited number of units within the

same range of measurements. The measurements must e7ist in some 0uantity but it can be

any 0uantity (within a range.) %and defines a concept as, “a mental integration of two or

more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic#s$% with their measurements

omitted ” (%and, 5+, p. 5*). igher level abstractions are formed by integrating lower

level ones. The important point here is that all (valid) concepts can be traced down to

(reduced to) the perceptual level. This keeps them tied to reality.

Concepts are neither ust in the mind nor ust in reality but are the form in which

the human minds grasps reality beyond the perceptual level. 3bserve that all this

contradicts ant@s view that concepts are built into the human mind and have no

connection to reality. >or ant reality was unknowable. (>or a fundamental criti0ue of

ant@s epistemology, see =hate, 2++*).

Concepts pertaining to consciousness are based on introspection. 3ne can observe

both mental contents and mental processes. To form concepts of process (e.g., perception,

udgment, evaluation, imagination, thinking, emotion) one observes similarities among

certain processes that differentiate them from other processes and omits measurements of

the content and of the intensity of the process but assumes that they e7ist.

t higher levels of abstraction (e.g., leadership, ustice) a comple7 chain of

abstractions is involved so that the process of reduction can be very comple7. Consider

D

D


7/10

the concept of leadership (which & define for present purposes as6 the process of guiding

and motivating others to pursue a common goal). This re0uires prior concepts such as6

human being (i.e., others), motivation, guidance, pursuit, common and goal. Each of

these concepts in turn (e7cept human being which is a first level concept) depends on

other concepts.

hat@s the role of definitions# s noted earlier, concepts are designated by a word

in order to make them into a single mental unit. This word can then stand for an unlimited

number of concretes. 5,+++ can stand for 5,+++ of anything (people, buildings, dollars,

miles, books, etc.). The word number itself can stand for any number.

hat, then, are definitions and what is their role# %and (5+, p.?+) writes, “

definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a

conceptF.The purpose of a definition is to distinguish the concept from all other

concepts and thus keep its units differentiated from all other e7istents.”

!efinitions have two parts6 genus which connects the concepts to a wider group

of e7istents and differentia which isolates the concept from other e7istents. Thus6 man is

the rational (differentia) animal (genus). &t is important to note that a definition is not the

same as a concept& The concept man includes everything known about man including

everything that might be discovered about man in the future. The definition states the

essentials, not the total characteristics of the concept.

!efinitions are based on the conte7t of knowledge at the time they are formulated

and may change as new discoveries are made. %ed may be defined at first simply by

pointing and later by wavelength of light. 4ut the concept of red does not change.

G

G


8/10

Changing the label on a file folder does not change what@s in the folder, in this case the

concept.

hat can be done, given the above, to insure greater conceptual clarity in our

field#

0ome 1uidelines for 2nsurin# Conceptual Clarity

5. >irst, tie the concept to reality. sk the 0uestion6 what facts of reality give rise to

this concept# &f the concept is psychological, it will re0uire introspection (e.g.,

satisfaction, self9efficacy). $ome concepts, like stress, re0uire hard thinking

because it entails tying several e7isting concepts together (e.g., an7iety, threat,

values, uncertainty, implied action, etc.).

2. $econd, formulate the definition scrupulously. 3ften it is best to start with a

dictionary, because a lot of the work has been done by others (sometimes over

decades of even centuries. !on@t automatically assume definitions formed by

people in your field are good ones'often they are not). >or e7ample, altruism

(selflessness) is not the same as helping or cooperation. !on@t blindly accept what

your colleagues offer (see 1ocke, 2++*, for a criti0ue of many current definitions

in the field).

*. old in mind that the purpose of a definition is not to impress others or to follow

the crowd but to identify the essentials of the concept. (by essentials & mean the

most fundamental characteristic that distinguishes it from other concepts and

accounts for the most other characteristics of the concept: %and 5+, p. ?;). Thus

H

H


9/10

man the rational animal is a better definition than man the entity that has a sense

of humor because the former is more fundamental.

?. &nsure that the concept is clearly distinguished from related concepts (e.g., task

specific efficacy vs. self9esteem).

;. &nsure that the concept is properly delimited: if it includes everything but the

kitchen sink, it has no coherent meaning.

D. Take great care to make sure that items created to measure a concept are logically

related to that concept. !on@t be misled by correlations. &n the social sciences

almost everything is correlated with everything else especially if the items are in

the same 0uestionnaire. This does not insure logical e0uivalence. Iou have to look

at the actual item content too.

G. !on@t group totally different concepts together and call them by one concept

name unless there is a fundamental link between the components.

"eferences

=hate, 3. (2++*) Bostmodernism@s antian roots. &n E. . 1ocke (Ed. ) Bost modernism

and management6 Bros, cons and the alternative.


10/10

Some Guidelines for Insuring Conceptual Clarity

Documents

Transcript of Some Guidelines for Insuring Conceptual Clarity