Self-compassion is receiving increasing interest from psychologists and researchers due to its potential role in wellbeing and mental health however, self-compassion as a unique construct has not been validated. This research utilised pilot studies in order to develop an operational definition of self-compassion, separate from other similar constructs. A multi-trait multi- method approach to construct validation was utilised to assess self-compassion‟s discriminant and convergent validity in relation to the constructs of self-esteem and compassion for others in a community sample of 307. Self-compassion was then evaluated for its role in mental health and wellbeing when assessed against the two comparison constructs. Results demonstrated discriminant validity to both comparison constructs but convergent validity only in regards to self-esteem, providing partial support for the construct validity of self- compassion. As hypothesised support was found for self-compassion as a unique predictor in regards to wellbeing, but its role could not be determined for mental health. The results are discussed in terms self-compassion‟s functional relationships with comparison constructs and therapeutic utility. Recommendations for the direction of future research are discussed.

The identification of potential underreporting in employment evaluations is important to consider when examining a measure’s validity. This importance increases in personnel selection involving high-virtue positions (e.g., police officers and firefighters). The current study aimed to utilize an archival firefighter applicant sample to examine the construct validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form’s (MMPI-2-RF) underreporting scales (L-r and K-r). Results were analyzed using a correlation matrix comprised of a modified version of the Multi-Trait Multi-Method Matrix (MTMM), as well as multiple regression and partial correlation. The present study provides additional support for the construct validity of the MMPI-2-RF’s underreporting validity scales. Further research using outcome measures and alternate assessment methods would be able to provide further information on the efficacy of these scales.

Much research has been conducted on the topic of the construct-related validity of assessment centers, however a definitive conclusion has yet to be drawn. The central question of this debate is whether assessment centers are measuring the dimensions they are designed to measure. The present study attempted to provide more evidence toward the improvement of construct-related validity. The first hypothesis involved determining whether opportunity to observe and opportunity to behave influenced discriminant and convergent validity. The second hypothesis addressed the debate over evaluation method and examined which method, within-exercise or within-dimension, yielded more favorable internal construct-related validity evidence. The third hypothesis explored the call for exercise scoring in assessment centers and compared the criterion-related validity of exercise versus dimension scores within the same assessment center. Finally, the fourth objective looked at the relationship of the stability of the dimensions with internal construct-related validity, specifically convergent validity evidence. A developmental assessment center used in two applied settings supplied the data. Two administrations of the assessment center were conducted for low to mid-level managers in a state agency (N = 31). Five administrations were conducted in a professional graduate school of public administration that prepares students for leadership and managerial positions in government and public service (N = 108). The seven administrations yielded a total sample size of 139 participants. Analysis of multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) matrices revealed that, as hypothesized, a lack of opportunity to behave within exercises, operationalized using behavior counts, yielded poor discriminant validity. Assessor ratings of opportunity to observe and behave did not produce hypothesized results. Consistent with the second hypothesis, secondary assessors, who represented the within-dimension evaluation method, provided ratings that demonstrated better construct-related validity evidence than the ratings provided by primary assessors, who represented the within-exercise method. Correlation and regression analyses of the dimension/performance relationships and the exercise/performance relationships revealed neither dimensions nor exercises to be the better predictor of supervisor ratings of performance. Using MTMM, partial support was found for the fourth objective: those dimensions that were more stable across exercises yielded better convergent validity evidence versus those dimensions that were more situationally specific. However the differences were not statistically significant or large. Overall results of this study suggest that there are some areas of design and implementation that can affect the construct-related validity of assessment centers, and researchers should continue to search for ways to improve assessment center construct-related validity, but should also look for ways other than MTMM to assess validity.

Much research has been conducted on the topic of the construct-related validity of assessment centers, however a definitive conclusion has yet to be drawn. The central question of this debate is whether assessment centers are measuring the dimensions they are designed to measure. The present study attempted to provide more evidence toward the improvement of construct-related validity. The first hypothesis involved determining whether opportunity to observe and opportunity to behave influenced discriminant and convergent validity. The second hypothesis addressed the debate over evaluation method and examined which method, within-exercise or within-dimension, yielded more favorable internal construct-related validity evidence. The third hypothesis explored the call for exercise scoring in assessment centers and compared the criterion-related validity of exercise versus dimension scores within the same assessment center. Finally, the fourth objective looked at the relationship of the stability of the dimensions with internal construct-related validity, specifically convergent validity evidence. A developmental assessment center used in two applied settings supplied the data. Two administrations of the assessment center were conducted for low to mid-level managers in a state agency (N = 31). Five administrations were conducted in a professional graduate school of public administration that prepares students for leadership and managerial positions in government and public service (N = 108). The seven administrations yielded a total sample size of 139 participants. Analysis of multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) matrices revealed that, as hypothesized, a lack of opportunity to behave within exercises, operationalized using behavior counts, yielded poor discriminant validity. Assessor ratings of opportunity to observe and behave did not produce hypothesized results. Consistent with the second hypothesis, secondary assessors, who represented the within-dimension evaluation method, provided ratings that demonstrated better construct-related validity evidence than the ratings provided by primary assessors, who represented the within-exercise method. Correlation and regression analyses of the dimension/performance relationships and the exercise/performance relationships revealed neither dimensions nor exercises to be the better predictor of supervisor ratings of performance. Using MTMM, partial support was found for the fourth objective: those dimensions that were more stable across exercises yielded better convergent validity evidence versus those dimensions that were more situationally specific. However the differences were not statistically significant or large. Overall results of this study suggest that there are some areas of design and implementation that can affect the construct-related validity of assessment centers, and researchers should continue to search for ways to improve assessment center construct-related validity, but should also look for ways other than MTMM to assess validity.

Psychometric instruments are used internationally in organisations to assist companies when making recruitment or development decisions. But the differences that exist on similar psychometric instruments between international groups of people with similar qualifications necessitate the evaluation of the construct validity of these instruments. The objective of this study was to determine the construct validity of the locus of control inventory developed by Udai Pareek in 1998. The instrument consists of 30 items and it was completed by 155 pre-and postgraduate students at the University of Pretoria. Oblimin rotation was used to assist with the interpretation of the factors. In the pattern and structure matrix the highest loadings were highlighted which meant that these items measured the construct that they were supposed to measure. Items were deleted where there was no clear indication as to what the item was measuring. Item analysis was done on each of the constructs identified to further investigate the appropriateness of each item and even more items were deleted, which also had an impact on the Cronbach’s alpha value. The chi-square as well as other fit indices was used to determine the model fit. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish how well the model fitted the data. It was clear that the two-factor model fitted the data considerably better than the three-factor model because of a high correlation between two of the factors which indicated that they might be measuring the same construct. The results indicate that the locus of control instrument is not suitable for use in the South African context and should therefore be modified until a satisfactory model fit is found. AFRIKAANS: Psigometrise instrumente word wereldwyd benut om maatsappye te help met werwing en ontwikkelings besluite. Maar die verskille wat ontstaan wanneer internasionale groepe met soortgelyke kwalifikasies teen mekaar opgeweeg word vereis dat die konstruk geldigheid van die instrumente bepaal word. Die doel van die studie was om die konstruk geldigheid van die lokus van kontrole vraelys, wat deur Udai Pareek ontwikkel is, te ondersoek.Die instrument bestaan uit 30 items en dit was voltooi deur 155 voor-en nagraadse studente van die Universiteit van Pretoria. Oblimin rotasie was gebruik om die interpretasie van die faktore te vergemaklik. Die items wat werklik meet wat dit ontwikkel is om te meet is ingekleur sodat dit maklik geidentifiseer kan word.Items is slegs uit die vraelys gehaal waar daar geen duidelike indikasie was wat die item meet nie. Item analise was op elke konstruk toegepas, en die chi-square en ander passings indekse was gebruik om te bepaal hoe die model op die data pas. Dit was duidelik dat die twee-faktor model die data baie beter pas as die voorgestelde drie-faktor model. Volgens die drie faktor model is daar twee van die voorgestelde drie faktore wat moontlik die selfde konstruk kan meet. Die resultate dui aan dat die lokus van kontrole vraelys nie geskik is vir gebruik in Suid–Afrika nie, en sal daarom aangepas moet word totdat „n aanvaarbare model gevind is. Copyright 2009, University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria. Please cite as follows: Engelbrecht, C 2009, Determining the construct validity of Udai Pareek's locus of control inventory , MCom dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, viewed yymmdd < http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02092012-100414 / > C12/4/75/gm / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Human Resource Management / unrestricted

No description available.

Safety interventions must be approached in a holistic manner, by taking cognisance of the organisational system in which accidents present themselves. Thus, a need to understand the individual in context of the organisational system that he/she functions in exists. This study focuses on the relationship between attitudes, beliefs, intention, perception, control and the propensity of employees to engage in unsafe behaviour, with a view towards improving safety statistics. In this regard the study investigated the construct validity of a Safety Survey instrument, based on the responses (n=450) of employees in the mining industry. An Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that the Safety Survey instrument differentiated between two to three underlying factors. The result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis tested two models by demonstrating the minimum requirements of the goodness of fit indexes. The construct validity of the Safety Survey instrument could be established for two nested models that identified an internal and external locus of control factor. The statistical evidence indicated an acceptable model fit. The statistical evidence validated the construct validity of the measurement model. Copyright 2008, University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria. Please cite as follows: Windbacher, M 2008, Determining the construct validity of the safety survey instrument, MCom dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, viewed yymmdd < http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02202012-123434 / > C12/4/66/gm / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Human Resource Management / unrestricted

Background: Construct validity refers to the degree to which tests that claim to measure a “construct” (i.e., an inferred concept that is intangible regarding an individual’s health or internal state such as a disease, or postulated attribute) are truly reflective of that specific construct. It is suggested that construct validity is an important concept in preclinical research, as it may help reduce misinterpretations of study results allowing for better ability to predict the success of clinical translation of preclinical studies. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to confirm its impact on preclinical research efficacy. Objectives: (I) Conduct a scoping review of the construct validity literature as it relates to the design of in vivo animal studies. (II) Conduct an overview of systematics reviews evaluating the application and reporting of construct validity within systematic reviews of in vivo animal studies. Methods: For the scoping review, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. Eligibility criteria was intentionally broad as we included any article that mentioned construct validity in preclinical in vivo research. Further review of citations was performed on eligible studies that provided substantial discussion on construct validity. For the overview, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and TOXLINE for systematic reviews of preclinical in vivo interventions. The outcomes of interest were the prevalence of systematic reviews that mentioned construct validity and the prevalence of reviews that assessed construct validity. Results: The literature searches for the scoping and overview yielded 3657 and 2356 articles, respectively. After screening 372 and 444 met inclusion criteria for the scoping and overview. Six codes were generated (theory; mechanism; matches the human condition; measures what it reports to; experimental conditions; and outcomes) from the content analysis for the definition of construct validity. Of the 444 systematic reviews, seven mentioned construct validity, but only three used the term construct validity directly. None of the systematic reviews assessed construct validity. Discussion/Conclusion: Construct validity was not defined uniformly among studies suggesting it is not clearly understood. There was limited reporting on construct validity in systematic reviews and entirely no assessment of it; this may reflect a lack of awareness of this concept. Future research should aim to find a consensus on the definition of construct validity in order to develop tools and frameworks to help researchers assess construct validity.

This study investigated the validity of the Reading Level Achievement Test of the English Language Center (ELC) of Brigham Young University. Test validation is a complicated process that involves evaluation of various types of validity. It was beyond the scope of this study to investigate different types of validity of the Reading LAT. The present study was only focused on the exam's construct validity. In an effort to validate the LAT, various models of reading comprehension were examined with the purpose of defining the construct of academic reading comprehension. The TOEFL academic reading framework was chosen to be the construct of academic reading comprehension for the present study. The ELC's reading objectives and the Reading LAT items were compared to the construct of academic reading comprehension as defined in the TOEFL framework. The results of this comparison suggest that neither the current ELC reading objectives, nor the current ELC Reading LAT adequately measures students' academic reading comprehension as defined in the construct.

This study tested the construct validity of a preschool measure of executive function (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; BRIEF-P) through support of convergent and discriminant validity using the multitrait-multimethod validation process. Convergent validity was examined through teacher ratings of executive function and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and through the measurement of executive function on a performance measure. Determination of discriminant validity was attempted through teacher ratings of executive function and anxious/shy behaviors and through performance measures of visuospatial processing. Participants were placed in one of two groups: a control group/no diagnosis (n = 21) or an ADHD Group (n = 14). Group comparisons were conducted using t-tests and chi-square analysis and determined group differences related to gender, ethnic background, IQ, and age. An Analysis of covariance, controlling for gender, indicated significantly higher teacher ratings of preschool-age children with ADHD than without ADHD on the BRIEF-P. Pearson correlations suggest a strong relationship between similar constructs utilizing same method procedures and a moderate relationship measuring the same construct between measures. Discriminant validity was unable to be established due to non significant relationships between the same trait/between methods and different trait/between methods correlations. However, the small number of participants (n = 35) and poor teacher return rate of questionnaires (control n = 7; ADHD n = 14) may have affected the results of this study. There were several other limitations of this study, including the design of the study and the extended length of time to complete the study. / School Psychology