thought to reflect basic dimensions of personality.
Theexploratoryfactor analytic approach is atheoreti-
cal. One begins by capturing a universe of items and
then proceeds to reduce them to basic elements—
personality, adjustment, diagnostic affiliation, or
whatever—in an attempt to arrive at the core traits
and dimensions of personality.Confirmatory factor
analytic approaches are more theory driven, seeking
to confirm a hypothesized factor structure (based on
theoretical predictions) for the test items (Floyd &
Widaman, 1995; Reise et al., 2000). Although a
detailed explanation of confirmatory factor analysis
procedures is beyond the scope of this book, it is
important to note that an increasing number of clin-
ical psychologists are employing confirmatory factor
analysis in the development and evaluation of objec-
tive assessment measures.
The strength of the factor analytic approach to
test construction is the emphasis on an empirical
demonstration that items purporting to measure a
variable or dimension of personality are highly
related to one another. However, a limitation of
this approach is that it does not in and of itself
demonstrate that these items are actually measuring
the variable of interest; we only know that the
items tend to be measuring the same“thing.”
Construct Validity Approach. This approach
combines many aspects of the content validity,
empirical criterion keying, and factor analytic
approaches (Clark & Watson, 1995; Strauss &
Smith, 2009). In this approach, scales are devel-
oped to measure specific concepts from a given
theory. In the case of personality assessment, the
intent is to develop measures anchored in a theory
of personality. Validation is achieved when it can
be said that a given scale measures the theoretical
construct in question. The selection of items is
based on the extent to which they reflect the the-
oretical construct under study. Item analysis, factor
analysis, and other procedures are used to ensure
that a homogeneous scale is developed. Construct
validity for the scale is then determined by dem-
onstrating, through a series of theory-based stud-
ies, that those who achieve certain scores on the
scale behave in non-test situations in a fashion that
could be predicted from their scale score. Because
of its comprehensiveness, the construct validity
approach to test construction is both the most
desirable and the most labor-intensive. In fact,
establishing the construct validity of a test is a
never-ending process, with empirical feedback
used to refine both the theory and the personality
measure (G. T. Smith & McCarthy, 1995; Strauss
& Smith, 2009).
To summarize and illustrate, Table 8-2 outlines
the validity of an item that purports to measure
depression according to each of the four test-
construction strategies just discussed. We now
turn to a discussion of several of the major objec-
tive personality measures available to clinical
psychologists.The MMPI and the MMPI-2
The MMPI was long the best example of the
empirical keying approach to test construction.
Seventy years after its publication by HathawayT A B L E 8-2 Strategies for Determining the Validity of Inventory Item
“I Wish I Could Be Happier”
Strategy Item Is Valid If
Content validity “Authorities”assert that the item is representative of the syndrome of depression.
Empirical criterion keying This item discriminates between depressed and nondepressed groups.
Factor analysis The item has been shown through factor analysis to be significantly related to a homo-
geneous and independent cluster of items that purport to measure depression.
Construct validity The item measures the depression construct as theoretically defined (depression involves
a negative view of oneself—in this case, seeing oneself as unhappy).
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 223