CT Word for the day: construal or construct?

[Diane]

When you start to look a bit deeper than just surface, you find all sorts of differences in word meanings.

Construct:

In scientific theory, particularly Psychology, a hypothetical construct is an explanatory variable which is not directly observable. For example, the concepts of intelligence and motivation are used to explain phenomena in psychology, but neither is directly observable. A hypothetical construct differs from an intervening variable in that it has properties and implications which have not been demonstrated in empirical research. These serve as a guide to further research. An intervening variable, on the other hand, is a summary of observed empirical findings.

Construct validity:

In science (e.g. social sciences and psychometrics), construct validity refers to whether a scale measures or correlates with the theorized psychological scientific construct (e.g., "fluid intelligence") that it purports to measure. In other words, it is the extent to which what was to be measured was actually measured. It is related to the theoretical ideas behind the trait under consideration, i.e. the concepts that organize how aspects of personality, intelligence, etc. are viewed.[1] The scale seeks to operationalise the concept, typically measuring several observable phenomena that supposedly reflect the underlying psychological concept. Construct validity is a means of assessing how well this has been accomplished. In lay terms, construct validity answers the question: "Are we actually measuring (are these means a valid form for measuring) what (the construct) we think we are measuring?"

A construct is not restricted to one set of observable indicators or attributes. It is common to a number of sets of indicators. Thus, "construct validity" can be evaluated by statistical methods that show whether or not a common factor can be shown to exist underlying several measurements using different observable indicators. This view of a construct rejects the operationist past that a construct is neither more nor less than the operations used to measure it.

Evaluation of construct validity requires that the correlations of the measure be examined in regards to variables that are known to be related to the construct (purportedly measured by the instrument being evaluated or for which there are theoretical grounds for expecting it to be related). This is consistent with the multitrait-multimethod matrix of examining construct validity described in Campbell and Fiske's landmark paper (1959).[2] Correlations that fit the expected pattern contribute evidence of construct validity. Construct validity is a judgment based on the accumulation of correlations from numerous studies using the instrument being evaluated.

There are at least 4 kinds listed.

Each of the words in that definition can take one down into a new rabbit hole. I have no mental map of how to navigate in an underground maze of scientific rabbitholes. I do not necessarily ever want to fall down inside one and have to battle a Red Queen.

Something I used to have conflated with "construct" but no longer do, is:

Construal:

Construal is a social psychological term used to describe how a person perceives, comprehends, and interprets the world around him or her, particularly the behavior or action of others towards him or her.

I think I'm way more comfortable dealing with people, with patients, in the world of construals than I will ever be dealing with people in the world of constructs. Yet, it is useful to know there are differences, and what the differences are. And that there are segments of the PT world that grapple with the one while I grapple with the other. Even though it feels like they went through to the other side of the looking glass and no longer able to cross back. Which is my construal about it all. For now.

[Diane]

I searched for "construal" in this very dense, very weighty tome of research methodology, Research Methods Knowlege Base. It wasn't in there anywhere. Naturally. "Construal" is not what the book is about, so why on earth would it be in there? Had the author included it as a term which was not strictly part of the language of science, maybe it would help me better understand what is included, and why.

[Jon Newman]

I thought of this post when I read this thread Diane.

I wonder if a construal includes an "I" (something is being said about their self) and construct does not (something is being said about their theory).

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Jon Newman

I thought of this post when I read this thread Diane.

I wonder if a construal includes an "I" (something is being said about their self) and construct does not (something is being said about their theory).

Thank you for linking to Sapolosky, Jon.

Yes, I think "construal" would be from an "I" perspective. "Construct" would be more "objective". Reminds me of Interactive/Operative.