Cited by 393Psychometric Methodologies and TestingBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchCognitive and psychological constructs research

Tackling the Problem of Construct Proliferation: A Guide to Assessing the Discriminant Validity of Conceptually Related Constructs

Open access
Shaffer, Jonathan A., DeGeest, David, Li, Andrew·2016·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

Construct proliferation—the accumulation of ostensibly different but potentially identical constructs representing organizational phenomena—is a salient problem in contemporary research. While a number of construct validation procedures exist, relatively few validation studies conduct comprehensive assessments of the discriminant validity of theoretically distinct constructs. In this article, we outline the key considerations a researcher must take into account when attempting to establish the empirical distinctness of new or existing constructs and provide a step-by-step guide on how to assess the discriminant validity of constructs while accounting for three major sources of measurement error: random error, specific factor error, and transient error. Using a number of popular measures from the leadership literature, we provide an illustrative example of how to conduct a study of discriminant validity. We include several analytic strategies in our study and discuss the similarities and differences between the results they yield. We also discuss several additional issues related to this type of research and make recommendations for conducting discriminant validity analyses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428115598239

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Comparing the correlation against 1.0 as a test of discriminant validity has two shortcomings: the possible outcomes are whether two constructs are perfectly correlated or not, but perfect correlation is rare in the population; and with a large enough sample size, even a correlation at 0.95 is statistically significantly different from 1.0.

    “However, Shaffer et al. (2016) summarized two shortcomings of comparing the correlation against 1.0 as a test of discriminant validity.First, the possible outcomes are whether two constructs are perfectly correlated or not, but it is rare for them to be perfectly correlated in the population.Second, with a large enough sample size (e.g., 1,000), even a correlation at 0.95 is statistically signific”

    From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shaffer et al., 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Shaffer et al. (2016) suggested examining the correlation disattenuated for measurement errors to evaluate discriminant validity.

    “Recently, Shaffer et al. (2016) suggested examining the correlation disattenuated for measurement errors to evaluate discriminant validity.”

    From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shaffer et al. (2016)

    The available passages identify the paper as a guide to assessing discriminant validity and list measurement error as a keyword, but they do not state that it recommends examining correlations disattenuated for measurement error. Searches for “disattenuated” and for correlations corrected for measurement error or unreliability found no passage establishing that recommendation. (LLM, conf=0.69)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Comparing the disattenuated correlation or HTMT ratio with a threshold value of 0.85 disregards sampling error.

    “Finally, comparing the disattenuated correlation or HTMT ratio with a threshold value of 0.85 disregards sampling error (Shaffer et al., 2016).”

    From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Shaffer et al., 2016

    The supplied title and Abstract-labeled metadata contain no discussion of disattenuated correlations, HTMT, a 0.85 threshold, or sampling error. Searches for those terms and for confidence intervals returned no substantive passage, so our copy cannot establish whether the paper makes the attributed point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A.
Affiliations
  • West Texas A&M University (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Shaffer, Jonathan A.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2015-08-18
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
80-110
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2337454271
Cited by
393
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cognitive and psychological constructs research
Keywords
construct proliferation, discriminant validity, construct validation, measurement error, random error, transient faults

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