Beyond Immanent and Transcendent Critique: Exploring Maul's Argument within the NRC (2001) Framework

Autor/in	Duckor, Brent
Titel	Beyond Immanent and Transcendent Critique: Exploring Maul's Argument within the NRC (2001) Framework
Quelle	In: Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 15 (2017) 2, S.98-102 (5 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1536-6367
DOI	10.1080/15366367.2017.1369812
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Surveys; Validity; Measurement Techniques; Psychological Testing; Methods; Social Science Research; Standards + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Survey; Umfrage; Befragung; Gültigkeit; Messtechnik; Psychological test; psychological tests; Psychological examination; Psychologischer Test; Method; Methode; Social scientific research; Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung; Standard
Abstract	In Andrew Maul's focus paper "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation'" published in this issue of "Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," Maul contends that self-report measures may be particularly difficult to validate. He cautions that such techniques may fall short of providing the kinds of rigorous tests of relevant hypotheses commonly expected in scientific research, and argues that traditional methods for the construction and validation of self-report survey-based assessments of psychological attributes are urgently in need of rethinking. In this commentary, Brent Duckor begins his comments by stating that it is tempting to see Maul's argument as one of a philosopher-critic, hovering between a transcendent and immanent critique of social science. Maul seems to be saying without overstating the case to his colleagues: noncognitive "measures" that rely on Likert scales are meaningless, in part, because the constructs are ill-defined and the item formats are not aligned with substantive, independent theory. Duckor, notes that the profession should be grateful that the non cognitive research methods Maul exposes in his study have alerted the profession to the potential misuse of such data and the need for a more serious approach to validation as an on-going, use-driven process. [For "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation," see EJ1156001.] (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01