Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction.

By Oliver P. John, Verónica Benet‐Martínez. 2000

482 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10f41aee95f7ffbf51c79b6bf996c8a263d72df3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Real-time motivation and engagement during a month at school: Every moment of every day for every student matters (2015, background): “Consistent with recommendations around convergent and discriminant validity (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000), we propose that there should be a different pattern of variance between academic and nonacademicmeasures.”
Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust (2008, background): “While the latter reliability falls short of the frequently used threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), recent research on reliability measures explicitly stated that this should not be considered a benchmark every scale has to pass (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991; John and Benet-Martinez, 2000).”
An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity (2020, background): “While the idea that a number less than 1 can be used as a cutoff was briefly mentioned in John and Benet-Martı́nez (2000) and J. A. Shaffer et al. (2016), we are unaware of any studies that have applied interval hypothesis tests or tested their effectiveness. w2ðmergeÞ and Other Comparisons Against…”
From Conceptualizing to Measuring HIV Stigma: A Review of HIV Stigma Mechanism Measures (2009, background): “Indicators of reliability, the consistency of a measure [53], included internal consistency and test-retest reliability.”
Development and Validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale (2017, background): “As a result, John and Benet-Martinez (2000) recommend that “if one wants to Table 1.”
Charitable Intent: A Moral or Social Construct? A Revised Theory of Planned Behavior Model (2011, unknown): “Even when applying a correction for attenuation, the values did not exceed the proposed standard value for discriminant validity <0.85 (Campbell and Fiske 1959; John and Benet-Martinez 2000).”
Social categorization moderates social projection. (2002, background): “If that proves to be impractical, then a representative sample of populations may be drawn (John & Benet-Martı́nez, 2000).”
Culture and Leisure Constraints: A Comparison of Canadian and Mainland Chinese University Students (2007, background): “In this respect we follow Raymore et al.'s (1993) reasoning that by not targeting a specific activity we eliminate concerns about participants who have either already negotiated intrapersonal constraints and formed a preference or who have failed to negotiate intrapersonal constraints and are now un”
Tackling the Problem of Construct Proliferation (2016, methodology): “Following the cutoff suggested by John and Benet-Martı́nez (2000), we considered correlations of .90 or greater in magnitude as suggesting a lack of discriminant validity.”
The Frustration Discomfort Scale: development and psychometric properties (2005, background): “12, 374–387 (2005) that they are correlated to such an extent that little would be gained by their separation, and that they are best interpreted as highly related facets of entitlement (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000).”
Designing jobs to do good: Dimensions and psychological consequences of prosocial job characteristics (2008, result): “Along with these promising measurement results, the data supported the majority of the predicted interrelationships, providing initial evidence for the predictive and consequential validity of the prosocial job characteristics (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000).”
Curiosity and Exploration: Facilitating Positive Subjective Experiences and Personal Growth Opportunities (2004, background): “…reliabilities were in the acceptable range for a research instrument (between .70and .80,withslightly lowervaluesbeingacceptable for shorter scales; John & Benet-Martinez, 2000; Nunnally, 1978) and did not demonstrate excessive homogeneity or item overlap (for critique of other curiosity scales,…”
Cronbach's Alpha: Review of Limitations and Associated Recommendations (2010, methodology): ““The indices of reliability describe the extent to which the scores produced by the measurement procedure are reproducible” (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000, p. 342), “accurate, consistent, and repeatable” (Dimitrov, 2007, p. 99).”