iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Brett Murphy @brettmurpsych.bsky.social · 11/12/2024

1 - We recommend that scholars not interweave discussions of poor validity reporting practices by test users with discussions of validity support for the test itself. If these two topics are interwoven, readers may inadvertently develop impressions of one that are conflated with the other

100

Brett Murphy @brettmurpsych.bsky.social · 11/12/2024

2- We recommend that test reviewers should give at least as much careful attention to external validation evidence as they do to structural validity aspects, such as factor structure. Prioritizing the latter at the expense of the former can impair sound conclusions.

100

Brett Murphy @brettmurpsych.bsky.social · 11/12/2024

Dr. Hall and I supplement Higgins et al. by reviewing basic external validity evidence for the RMET. We conclude that, though the RMET is far from ideal, it possesses substantial validity as a measure of emotion recognition. As such, we disagree with the strenuousness of Higgins disavowal.

100