¿Más es mejor? La proliferación de instrumentos de medida en psicología.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21134/pssa.v13i1.20Resumen
La psicología, como ciencia del comportamiento humano, se ha caracterizado a lo largo de su historia por la búsqueda de herramientas fiables y válidas para medir los constructos psicológicos, tarea nada sencilla dado el carácter no observable de muchos de los procesos psicológicos y el hecho de que las medidas de los síntomas no pueden asumirse como indicadores perfectos de los atributos que se están evaluando. En palabras de Edwards y Bagozzi (2000), “estos fenómenos no pueden conocerse de manera directa o con total precisión debido al error de medición y a la imperfecta lente epistemológica que proporciona un constructo”. Sea como fuere, la realidad es que el uso de instrumentos de evaluación es continuo tanto en la práctica profesional como de investigación en todos los ámbitos de actuación de la psicología.
Descargas
Referencias
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2018). Estándares para pruebas educativas y psicológicas (M. Lieve, Trans.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. (Original work published 2014)
Bergkvist, L. (2021). Perspectives: Measure proliferation in advertising research: Are standard measures the solution? International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 40(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1753442.
Bergkvist, L., & Langner, T. (2019). Construct heterogeneity and proliferation in advertising research. International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 38(8), 1286–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1622345
Borsboom D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6
Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A., & Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory Construction Methodology: A Practical Framework for Building Theories in Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647
Centeno-Leyva, S., & Dominguez Lara, S. (2020). Replicability in psychological research: a reflection. Interacciones, 6(3), e172. https://doi.org/10.24016/2020.v6n3.172
de Aguiar Rodrigues, A. C., & de Carvalho-Freitas, M. N. (2016). Theoretical fragmentation: Origins and repercussions in Work and Organizational Psychology. Revista Psicologia Organizações e Trabalho, 16(4), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.17652/rpot/2016.4.12630
Edwards, J. R., y Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological methods, 5(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.5.2.155
Elson, M., Hussey, I., Alsalti, T., & Arslan, R.C. (2023). Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes. Communications Psychology, 1, 25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00026-9
Evers, A., Hagemeister, C., Høstmælingen, A., Lindley, P., Muñiz, J., & Sjöberg, A. (2013). EFPA test review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests (EFPA Board of Assessment Document 110c, Version 4.2.6). European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations. https://www.efpa.eu
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456-465.
Freitag, G. F., Grassie, H. L., Jeong, A., Mallidi, A., Comer, J. S., Ehrenreich-May, J., & Brotman, M. A. (2023). Systematic Review: Questionnaire-Based Measurement of Emotion Dysregulation in Children and Adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 62(7), 728–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.866
Fried, E. I. (2017). What are psychological constructs? On the nature and statistical modelling of emotions, intelligence, personality traits and mental disorders. Health Psychology Review, 11(2), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1306718
Fried, E. I. & Flake, J.K. (2018, March). Measurement Matters. Observer. Consultado en https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/measurement-matters.
Haraldstad, K., Wahl, A., Andenæs, R., Andersen, J. R., Andersen, M. H., Beisland, E., Borge, C. R., Engebretsen, E., Eisemann, M., Halvorsrud, L., Hanssen, T. A., Haugstvedt, A., Haugland, T., Johansen, V. A., Larsen, M. H., Løvereide, L., Løyland, B., Kvarme, L. G., Moons, P., Norekvål, T. M., … LIVSFORSK network (2019). A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Quality of life research, 28(10), 2641–2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9
Hardwicke, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2023). Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2
Henriques, G. (2022). A new synthesis for solving the problem of psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18493-2
Hernández, A., Hidalgo, M.D., Hambleton, R.K., Gómez-Benito, J. (2020). International Test Commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema, 32(3), 390-398. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.306
Hernández, A., Ponsoda, V., Muñiz, J., Prieto, G. y Elosua, P. (2016). Revisión del modelo para evaluar la calidad de los tests utilizados en España. Papeles del Psicólogo, 37, 192-197.
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological assessment, 15(4), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.446
Iliescu, D., Greiff, S., Ziegler, M. et al. (2024). Proliferation of measures contributes to advancing psychological science. Communications Psychology, 2 (19). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00065-w
International Test Commission (2012). International Guidelines on Quality Control in Scoring, Test Analysis, and Reporting of Test Scores. [www.intestcom.org]
International Test Commission (ITC) (2014) ITC Guidelines on Quality Control in Scoring, Test Analysis, and Reporting of Test Scores. International Journal of Testing, 14:3, 195-217, DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2014.918040
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org]
Intilangelo, A., Majic, S., Palchik, V., & Traverso, M. L. (2024). Validated medication adherence questionnaires and associated factors in chronic patients: Systematic review. Cuestionarios validados de adherencia a la medicación y factores asociados en pacientes crónicos: revisión sistemática. Farmacia hospitalaria: órgano oficial de expresión científica de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria, 48(4), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farma.2024.01.001
Johann, D., Neufeld, J., Thomas, K., Rathmann, J., & Rauhut, H. (2024). The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies. Research Evaluation, 00: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae011
Lazzaro-Salazar, Mariana, & Pujol-Cols, Lucas. (2022). Instrumentos estandarizados para medir la relación médico-paciente: una revisión sistemática de la literatura internacional e iberoamericana. Revista médica de Chile, 150(4), 512-531. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872022000400512
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
López y Barber (2024). Revisión sistemática de los instrumentos de evaluación de la calidad de Atención Primaria utilizados en los últimos 10 años. Atención Primaria 56(9):1203046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2024.103046
Ludwig, T., Altenmüller, M. S., Schramm, L. F. F., & Twardawski, M. (2023). Evading Open Science: The Black Box of Student Data Collection. Social Psychological Bulletin, 18, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9411
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400
Mischel, W. (2008). The toothbrush problem. APS Observer, 21. Consultado en https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-toothbrush-problem.
Mokkink, L. B., Elsman, E. B.M., & Terwee, C. B. (2024). Cosmin guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care & Rehabilitation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición [International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25(2), 151–157.
Nosek, B. A., Beck, E. D., Campbell, L., Flake, J. K., Hardwicke, T. E., Mellor, D. T., van 't Veer, A. E., & Vazire, S. (2019). Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009
Paniagua, D., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., Miguel-Alvaro, A., Casas-Aragonez, N., Aparicio-Garcia, M. E., & Aguayo-Estremera, R. (2023). Prácticas Cuestionables en Estudios de Validez de Instrumentos de Medición Psicológica: Comunalidades y Unicidades de la Crisis de
Replicabilidad en el Campo de la Psicometría. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicologica, 66(5), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP66.5.02
Prieto, G. y Muñiz, J. (2000). Un modelo para evaluar la calidad de los tests utilizados en España. Papeles del Psicólogo, 77, 65-72.
Prinsen, C. A., Vohra, S., Rose, M. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Clarke, M., Williamson, P. R., & Terwee, C. B. (2016). How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline. Trials, 17(1), 449. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2
Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A. (2016). Tackling the Problem of Construct Proliferation: A Guide to Assessing the Discriminant Validity of Conceptually Related Constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239
Schnepf, J., & Groeben, N. (2024). The replication crisis as mere indicator of two fundamental misalignments: methodological confirmation bias in hypothesis testing and anthropological oversimplification in theory-building [Working paper]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4797750
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Revista de PSICOLOGÍA DE LA SALUD
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
