Advanced search
1 file | 1.30 MB Add to list

Validity beyond measurement : why psychometric validity is insufficient for valid psychotherapy research

Femke Truijens (UGent) , Shana Cornelis (UGent) , Mattias Desmet (UGent) , Melissa De Smet (UGent) and Reitske Meganck (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
In psychotherapy research, “validity” is canonically understood as the capacity of a test to measure what is purported to measure. However, we argue that this psychometric understanding of validity prohibits working researchers from considering the validity of their research. Psychotherapy researchers often use measures with a different epistemic goal than test developers intended, for example when a depression symptom measure is used to indicate “treatment success” (cf. outcome measurement for evidence-based treatment). However, the validity of a measure does not cover the validity of its use as operationalization of another target concept within a research procedure, nor the validity of its function toward an epistemic goal. In this paper, we discuss the importance of considering validity of the epistemic process beyond the validity of measures per se, based on an empirical case example from our psychotherapy study (“SCS”, Cornelis et al., 2017). We discuss why the psychometric understanding of validity is insufficient in covering epistemic validity, and we evaluate to what extent the available terminology regarding validity of research is sufficient for working researchers to accurately consider the validity of their overall epistemic process. As psychotherapy research is meant to offer a sound evidence-base for clinical practice, we argue that it is vital that psychotherapy researchers are able to discuss the validity of the epistemic choices made to serve the clinical goal.
Keywords
validity, epistemic validity, validity or research, psychotherapy research, evidence-based treatment, empirical case study, evidence-based case study

Downloads

  • fpsyg-10-00532.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.30 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Truijens, Femke et al. “Validity Beyond Measurement : Why Psychometric Validity Is Insufficient for Valid Psychotherapy Research.” FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY 10 (2019): n. pag. Print.
APA
Truijens, F., Cornelis, S., Desmet, M., De Smet, M., & Meganck, R. (2019). Validity beyond measurement : why psychometric validity is insufficient for valid psychotherapy research. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 10.
Chicago author-date
Truijens, Femke, Shana Cornelis, Mattias Desmet, Melissa De Smet, and Reitske Meganck. 2019. “Validity Beyond Measurement : Why Psychometric Validity Is Insufficient for Valid Psychotherapy Research.” Frontiers in Psychology 10.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Truijens, Femke, Shana Cornelis, Mattias Desmet, Melissa De Smet, and Reitske Meganck. 2019. “Validity Beyond Measurement : Why Psychometric Validity Is Insufficient for Valid Psychotherapy Research.” Frontiers in Psychology 10.
Vancouver
1.
Truijens F, Cornelis S, Desmet M, De Smet M, Meganck R. Validity beyond measurement : why psychometric validity is insufficient for valid psychotherapy research. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY. Frontiers Media SA; 2019;10.
IEEE
[1]
F. Truijens, S. Cornelis, M. Desmet, M. De Smet, and R. Meganck, “Validity beyond measurement : why psychometric validity is insufficient for valid psychotherapy research,” FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, vol. 10, 2019.
@article{8607083,
  abstract     = {In psychotherapy research, “validity” is canonically understood as the capacity of a test to measure what is purported to measure. However, we argue that this psychometric understanding of validity prohibits working researchers from considering the validity of their research. Psychotherapy researchers often use measures with a different epistemic goal than test developers intended, for example when a depression symptom measure is used to indicate “treatment success” (cf. outcome measurement for evidence-based treatment). However, the validity of a measure does not cover the validity of its use as operationalization of another target concept within a research procedure, nor the validity of its function toward an epistemic goal. In this paper, we discuss the importance of considering validity of the epistemic process beyond the validity of measures per se, based on an empirical case example from our psychotherapy study (“SCS”, Cornelis et al., 2017). We discuss why the psychometric understanding of validity is insufficient in covering epistemic validity, and we evaluate to what extent the available terminology regarding validity of research is sufficient for working researchers to accurately consider the validity of their overall epistemic process. As psychotherapy research is meant to offer a sound evidence-base for clinical practice, we argue that it is vital that psychotherapy researchers are able to discuss the validity of the epistemic choices made to serve the clinical goal.
},
  articleno    = {532},
  author       = {Truijens, Femke and Cornelis, Shana and Desmet, Mattias and De Smet, Melissa and Meganck, Reitske},
  issn         = {1664-1078},
  journal      = {FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY},
  keywords     = {validity,epistemic validity,validity or research,psychotherapy research,evidence-based treatment,empirical case study,evidence-based case study},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {Frontiers Media SA},
  title        = {Validity beyond measurement : why psychometric validity is insufficient for valid psychotherapy research},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00532},
  volume       = {10},
  year         = {2019},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: