The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incremental Validity Principles in Test Construction.
Abstract
The authors articulate 5 basic principles for enhancing incremental validity, both among elements within a test and between tests, during test construction: (a) careful, precise articulation of each element or facet within the content domain; (b) reliable measurement of each facet through use of multiple, alternate-form items; (c) examination of incremental validity at the facet level rather than the broad construct level; (d) use of items that represent single facets rather than combinations of facets; and (e) empirical examination of whether there is a broad construct or a combination of separate constructs. Using these principles, the authors offer specific suggestions for modifications in 3 classic test construction approaches; (a) criterion keying, (b) inductive test construction, and (c) deductive test construction. Implementation of these suggestions is likely to provide theoretical clarification and improved prediction.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Smith et al. (2003) argued that reliable assessment of clearly specified facets within a test is the most informative way of evaluating incremental validity.”
From Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness (2006) · cites this paper as Smith et al. (2003)
In the citing paper
“As Smith et al. (2003) have noted, such items may be less useful than those loading on a single factor because they can obscure the facet structure of the instrument, the relationships between facets and other measures, and the incremental validity of some facets over others in predicting relevant variables.”
From Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness (2006) · cites this paper as Smith et al. (2003)
Citations
Cites
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.238 · Cited by 2,387
Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology
Comrey, A. L. (1988) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.56.5.754 · Cited by 1,154
Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative analytical framework
Edwards, J. R. (2001) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810142004 · Cited by 1,128
Hohlstein, L. A., Smith, G. T., & Atlas, J. G. (1998) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.1.49 · Cited by 263
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Anderson. 2001 · DOI
- Bentler, 1995, Structural equations program manual.
- Bollen, 1989, Structural equations with latent variables., 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-006X.48.4.419 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.214 · DOI
- 10.2466/PR0.69.7.1047-1057 · DOI
- Costa, 1992, Manual for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI).
- 10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2 · DOI
- Cronbach, 1957, Psychological tests and personnel decisions.
- Eysenck, 1983, Personality as a fundamental concept in scientific psychology., Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 289, 10.1080/00049538308258745 · DOI
- Fischer. 2002 · DOI
- 10.1002/eat.10165 · DOI
- 10.1037/0893-164X.17.2.108 · DOI
- 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.248 · DOI
- Goldberg. 1993 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.137 · DOI
- Hambleton, 1991, Fundamentals of item response theory, Vol. 2
- 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<627::AID-JOB2828>3.0.CO;2-F · DOI
- Hogan, 1992, Hogan Personality Inventory manual
- Horst, 1966, Psychological measurement and prediction.
- Hough, 1995, Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations., 31
- 10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.429 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0058543 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00269.x · DOI
- 10.1037/1082-989X.1.3.293 · DOI
- Nunnally, 1994, Psychometric theory.
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.538 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2309 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6<639::AID-JOB3828>3.0.CO;2-9 · DOI
- Sechrest, 1963, Incremental validity: A recommendation., Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 153, 10.1177/001316446302300113 · DOI
- 10.1002/eat.10034 · DOI
- 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.300 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511
“Smith et al. (2003) argued that reliable assessment of clearly specified facets within a test is the most informative way of evaluating incremental validity.”
BackgroundSelf-citationBaer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh, E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191107313003 · Cited by 2,930
Self-citationAssessment of Mindfulness by Self-Report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191104268029 · Cited by 2,298
Self-citationThe validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health.
Reyes, A. D. L., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Burgers, D. E., & Rabinowitz, J. A. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038498 · Cited by 1,866
“That is, the expertise of each informant should result in reports from which scores reflect different facets of patients' concerns (i.e., different contexts in which patients display concerns; see also Smith et al., 2003).”
Cyders, M. A., Smith, G. T., Spillane, N. S., Fischer, S., Annus, A. M., & Peterson, C. (2007) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.107 · Cited by 1,193
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., & Fister, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 467-477
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2088786239
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- incremental validity, test development, construct validity, prediction
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Personality Assessment, Personality Inventory, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
