Here - Paul Barrett

The implications of the above forOrganizational Research4. The “Qual-vs-Quant” debate results from amisunderstanding of both kinds of approachto systematic observation. The choice of themost valid research method is absolutelycontingent upon the knowledge claims whichare desired to be made by an investigator, andthe assumptions that are constitutive of themethodology that will be used to attempt toconstruct those claims. The implications of the above forOrganizational Research4. With the publication of Borsboom, D.,Mellenbergh, G.J., and Van Heerden, J. (2004)The concept of validity. Psychological Review,111, 4, 1061-1071, the entire notion ofconstruct validity as “Scientifically speaking, to‘make clear what something is’ means to set forththe laws in which it occurs.” (Cronbach andMeehl, 1955) – and the “nomological net” hasbeen left in intellectual tatters.MGMT 740 – 873th March 2006 MGMT 740 – 874th March 2006 The implications of the above forOrganizational ResearchThe Abstract ….“This article advances a simple conception of testvalidity: A test is valid for measuring an attributeif (a) the attribute exists and (b) variations in theattribute causally produce variation in themeasurement outcomes. This conception isshown to diverge from current validity theory inseveral respects. In particular, the emphasis in theproposed conception is on ontology, reference, andcausality, whereas current validity theory focuseson epistemology, meaning, and correlation. The implications of the above forOrganizational ResearchIt is argued that the proposed conception is notonly simpler but also theoretically superior to theposition taken in the existing literature. Further,it has clear theoretical and practical implicationsfor validation research. Most important,validation research must not be directed at therelation between the measured attribute andother attributes but at the processes that conveythe effect of the measured attribute on the testscores”.MGMT 740 – 875th March 2006 MGMT 740 – 876th March 2006