Yes / This paper introduces the concept of user validity and provides a new perspective on the validity of interpretations from tests. Test interpretation is based on outputs such as test scores, profiles, reports, spread-sheets of multiple candidates’ scores, etc. The user validity perspective focuses on the interpretations a test user makes given the purpose of the test and the information provided in the test output. This innovative perspective focuses on how user validity can be extended to content, criterion and to some extent construct-related validity. It provides a basis for researching the validity of interpretations and an improved understanding of the appropriateness of different approaches to score interpretation, as well as how to design test outputs and assessments which are pragmatic and optimal.

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) has gained widespread favor since its publication. However, validation studies of its interpretive descriptors remained limited to date. As such, the primary goal of the current study aimed at validating the interpretive descriptors through the lens of empirical correlates using the PDSQ as the external criterion. It also served as a replication and extension to the 2018 study conducted by Rogers and colleagues. The final archival sample included 204 clients from the UNT Psychology Clinic who were administered PAI between May 2016 and December 2020. Overall, reliability and construct validity were strongly supported for PAI clinical scales. Further, the current study replicated large majority of the correlates identified by Rogers and colleagues, which boosted the confidence in reproducible interpretations based on empirical correlates. Importantly, investigation of item-level and gendered correlates provided crucial interpretive implications that were otherwise obscured. For example, item-level correlates refined interpretation by clarifying the nature of scale-level correlates, particularly those of moderate strength. On the other hand, notable gender differences were identified for certain scales, which led to drastic differences in patterns of gendered vs. non-gendered correlates. Finally, several important methodological considerations are proposed in hope to facilitate the empirical research concerning measurement validity, as well as combat the current replication crisis. The need to adopt more stringent standards for effect size, as well as the instability of correlates of moderate strength were discussed. Implications of clinical practice and future directions for research are also discussed.