From test validity to construct validity … and back?

Major changes in thinking about validity have occurred during the past century, shifting the focus in thinking from the validity of the test to the validity of test score interpretations. These changes have resulted from the 'new' thinking about validity in which construct validity has emerged as the central or unifying idea of validity today. Construct validity was introduced by Cronbach and Meehl in the mid-1950s in an attempt to address the validity of those many psychological concepts that have no clear referent in reality. To do this, construct validity theory required a nomological network--an elaborate theoretical network of constructs and observations connected by scientific laws--to validate the constructs. However, nomological networks are hard to come by and none that would do the job required by construct validity has been forthcoming to date. Thus, the current construct validity approach has retreated to one of simply 'interpretation and argument', but this seems to be too general to tie down the constructs in the way a nomological network would do to give credibility to the validity of the construct. As a result, the concept of validity seems to have been watered down and the credibility of validity claims weakened.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage a discussion of the use of construct validity in medical education, and to suggest that test developers and users reconsider the use of abstract theoretical constructs that have no referent apart from theory.

We present a critical review of these concerns about construct validity and provide for contrast a brief overview of a recently proposed view of measurement based on scientific realism and causality analysis.