predictive of real-life criteria. Traditional views ( Campbell & Fiske, 1959 ) have focused on validity as an empirical
feature of a scale/measure and have been mainly concerned with construct validity ( Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 ).
Furthermore, reverse-worded items typically are loaded by a separate factor suggesting that they measure
a distinct construct (i.e., reverse-worded items do not simply measure the inverse or opposite of a particular
construct /C0e.g., see Boyle, 1989 ). Therefore, inclusion of reverse-worded (reverse-keyed) items in rating and
self-report scales potentially may be problematic. In view of this problem, some scales/measures have been
constructed, deliberately avoiding the inclusion of reverse-worded items (e.g., the Melbourne Curiosity Inventory ;
Naylor, 1981 ). It is noteworthy, however, that many more recently constructed scales/measures have not
addressed this source of measurement error, and have prominently included such reverse-worded items in the
hope of minimizing certain response sets (such as yea-saying or nay-saying).
Also, there appear to be ethnic group differences in responding to Likert-type scales. For example, Bachman
and O’Malley (1984, p. 491) reported that:
‘blacks are more likely than whites to use the extreme response categories, particularly the positive end of agree /C0disagree
scales ...The findings reveal potential pitfalls in dealing with racial differences in survey and personality measures, and illustrate the
need for great caution in reporting and interpreting such differences.’
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) stated that validity must
also be tied to the test scores (or measures derived from a test) and the interpretation of test data. While test
scores must be viewed in relation to standardization and normative data, reliability, and additional factors such
as moderator variables, ‘ test validity is central to test interpretation ’(Decker, 2013 , p. 37). Five sources of validity
evidence are prescribed in the standards and include: test content, relations to other variables, internal structure,
response processes, and consequences of testing (cf. Boyle, 1987 ;Sireci & Sukin, 2013 ). The focus on validity
in the present book is extensive in examining convergent/concurrent validity, divergent/discriminant validity,
construct/factor analytic validity, and criterion/predictive validity.
While we can expect to see increasing sophistication in methods of assessing the psychometric qualities of
scales/measures, a final note on validity is warranted here. Messick (1998) has argued that a scale’s validity
should not be constrained to just the mechanics of construct and criterion validity but also take into account how
an individual’s responses on a scale/measure are interpreted, as well as the likely resulting social consequences.
This is reflected in a 2 32 matrix describing validity from the perspective of test use and interpretation (i.e., test
function) in relation to the evidential and consequential basis. More recently, Hubley and Zumbo (2011) have
expanded on Messick’s (1998) inclusion of social consequences and have presented a list of the forms of evidence
that should be considered when determining the interpretation and use of test scores, including: score structure,
reliability, content-related evidence, criterion-related evidence, convergent and discriminant evidence, group evi-
dence, invariance (across groups, contexts and purposes), social and personal consequences, including unin-
tended social or personal side effects. Ethical questions and guidelines abound on the use of scales/measures
(e.g., for diagnosis, or selection), and test interpretation has been ‘battled’ in the courts of law, although psycho-
metric scales in themselves are just measures.
CHAPTER CONTENTS
Here, we briefly introduce the chapters, in relation to the broadly defined thematic areas just described. This
chapter and the one that follows introduce core issues for social-personality assessments. Questionnaires based
on subjective self-reports are so prevalent in the field, despite their known limitations, that their usage requires
special attention. As Helmes, Holden, and Ziegler discuss in their chapter on Response Bias, Malingering and
Impression Management , detecting and countering response bias is critical for securing valid measures from per-
sonality and attitude questionnaires. Their chapter covers contemporary scales for assessment of bias and related
constructs, as well as promising new constructs and future challenges.
The section on Emotional Dispositions reviews measures of general affective tendencies, cognitive disposi-
tions closely linked to emotion, and transient states. In the first chapter in this section, Bryant and Harrison
review Measures of Hope and Optimism: Assessing Positive Expectations of the Future . Hope and optimism tend to
overlap but they are conceptually unique and can be distinguished psychometrically as both global and more
context-specific constructs. Fernandez, Day, and Boyle review Measures of Anger and Hostility in Adults . Taking
the MMPI as the starting point for measuring anger traits, they demonstrate how contemporary anger and10 1. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF SCALES AND MEASURES
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT