Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

“Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix”

Psychology as an empirical science depends on the availability of valid measures of a construct. Validity means that a measure (e.g., a test or questionnaire) adequately assesses the construct (trait) it intends to measure. In their 1959 article “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod Matrix,” Donald T. Campbell and Donald W. Fiske proposed a way of test validation based on the idea that it is not sufficient to consider a single operationalization of a construct but that multiple measures are necessary. In order to validate a measure, scientists first have to define the construct to be measured in a literary form and then must generate at least two measures that are as different as possible but that are each adequate for measuring the construct (multiple operationalism in contrast to single operationalism). These two measures should strongly correlate but differ from measures that were created to assess different traits.

Campbell and Fiske distinguished between four aspects of the validation process that can be analyzed by means of the multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) matrix. First, convergent validity is proven by the correlation of independent measurement procedures for measuring the same trait. Second, new measures of a trait should show low correlations with measures of other traits from which they should differ (discriminant validity). Third, each test is a trait–method unit. Consequently, interindividual differences in test scores can be due to measurement features, as well as to the content of the trait. Fourth, in order to separate method- from trait-specific influences, and to analyze discriminant validity, more than one trait and more than one method have to be considered in the validation process.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evidence is obtained if the correlations of independent measures of the same trait (monotrait–heteromethod correlations) are significantly different from 0 and sufficiently large. Convergent validity differs from reliability in the type of methods considered. Whereas reliability is proven by correlations of maximally similar methods of a trait (monotrait–monomethod correlations), the proof of convergent validity is the stronger, the more independent the methods are. For example, reliability of a self-report extroversion questionnaire can be analyzed by the correlations of two test halves of this questionnaire (split-half reliability) whereas the convergent validity of the questionnaire can be scrutinized by its correlation with a peer report of extroversion. According to Campbell and Fiske, independence of methods is a matter of degree, and they consider reliability and validity as points on a continuum from reliability to validity. Heterotrait–monomethod correlations that do not significantly differ from 0 or are relatively low could indicate that one of the two measures or even both measures do not appropriately measure the trait (low convergent validity). However, a low correlation could also show that the two different measures assess different components of a trait that are functionally different. For example, a low correlation between an observational measure of anger and the self-reported feeling component of anger could indicate individuals who regulated their visible anger expression. In this case, a low correlation would not indicate that the self-report is an invalid measure of the feeling component and that the observational measure is an invalid indicator of overt anger expression. Instead, the two measures could be valid measures of the two different components of the anger episode that they are intended to measure, and different methods may be necessary to appropriately assess these different components. It is also recommended that one consider traits that are as independent as possible. If two traits are considered independent, the heterotrait–monomethod correlations should be 0. Differences from 0 indicate the degree of a common method effect.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading