Related Experiment Videos
The myth of testing construct validity using factor analysis or correlations with normal or mixed clinical
Dean C Delis1, Mark Jacobson, Mark W Bondi
1Psychology Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, California 92161, USA. ddelis@ucsd.edu
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS
|November 25, 2003
Summary
Shared-variance methods in psychology can mask crucial cognitive differences. Damaged brains reveal that memory measures sharing variance in healthy individuals can dissociate, highlighting limitations in current construct validity testing.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Neuroscience
- Cognitive Science
Background:
- Psychological construct validity traditionally relies on shared-variance techniques like correlation and factor analysis.
- These methods often use large normative or mixed clinical samples, potentially obscuring important distinctions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To illustrate the shortcomings of shared-variance techniques in construct validation.
- To investigate how cognitive measures that appear unitary in healthy brains behave in damaged brains.
Main Methods:
- Correlational analyses of immediate and delayed memory in normal and patient groups (Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease).
- Factor analysis of memory measures in a homogeneous Alzheimer's disease patient sample.
Main Results:
- Cognitive measures sharing variance in intact brains can dissociate in damaged brains.
- Dissociation occurs when brain pathology affects regions crucial to specific cognitive processes.
- Shared-variance analyses in normal or mixed groups can mask vital distinctions, like short-term versus long-term memory.
Conclusions:
- Shared-variance techniques may provide a facade of assessing unitary constructs.
- These methods can obscure critical cognitive dissociations, particularly in neurological conditions.
- Findings have implications for refining construct validity testing in research and clinical practice.