Understanding the Impact of Convergent Validity on Research Results

612 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Revisiting Individual Creativity Assessment: Triangulation in Subjective and Objective Assessment Methods (2016, background): “Social science research has not specified statistical threshold levels of correlations sufficient to confirm convergent validity (Carlson & Herdman, 2012).”
Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. (2016, background): “Hence, researchers testing hypotheses that include proxies can produce different results than would have occurred if a more meaningful CV had been used (Carlson & Herdman, 2012).”
Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, background): “…sizes across different measures of similar constructs (e.g., Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995), and the literature on convergent and discriminant validity, which makes researchers sensitive to the relative highs and lows of effect size estimates (e.g., Carlson & Herdman, 2012).”
A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use (2021, background): “However, noting our aim of investigating convergent validity and acknowledging Carlson and Herdman’s 86 recommendations, we considered correlation coefficients above 0.7 to indicate strong evidence of convergent validity, between 0.5 and 0.7 to indicate acceptable convergent validity, and below 0.5 ”