Knowing What We're Talking About: Facilitating Decentralized, Unequivocal Publication of and Reference to Psychological Construct Definitions and Instructions

Gjalt-Jorn Peters; Rik Crutzen

doi:10.15626/MP.2022.3638

Authors

Gjalt-Jorn Peters Theory, Methods and Statistics, Faculty of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands
Rik Crutzen Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht Universit

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2022.3638

Keywords:

Constructs, Theory Development, Jingle-Jangle Fallacy, Measurement, Validity, Epistemic Iteration

Abstract

A theory crisis and measurement crisis have been argued to be root causes of psychology's replication crisis. In both, the lack of conceptual clarification and the jingle-jangle jungle at the construct definition level as well the measurement level play a central role. We introduce a conceptual tool that can address these issues: Decentralized Construct Taxonomy specifications (DCTs). These consist of comprehensive specifications of construct definitions, corresponding instructions for quantitative and qualitative research, and unique identifiers. We discuss how researchers can develop DCT specifications as well as how DCT specifications can be used in research, practice, and theory development. Finally, we discuss the implications and potential for future developments to answer the call for conceptual clarification and epistemic iteration. This contributes to the move towards a psychological science that progresses in a cumulative fashion through discussion and comparison.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 1098–1109. https://doi.org/10/gg33wb DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/687941

Altgassen, E., Geiger, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2023). Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness. European Journal of Personality, 089020702311745. https://doi.org/10/kcrc DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231174575

Borgstede, M., & Eggert, F. (2022). Squaring the circle: From latent variables to theory-based measurement. Theory & Psychology. https://doi.org/10/grhv9p DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221127985

Borsboom, D., Cramer, A., Kievit, R., Scholten, A., & Frani ́c, S. (2009). The end of construct validity. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 135–170). IAP Information Age Publishing.

Borsboom, D., Van der Maas, H., Dalege, J., Kievit, R., & Haig, B. (2021). Theory construction methodology: A practical framework for building theories in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. https://doi.org/10/gh65nr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969647

Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. Launer & G. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in Statistics (pp. 201–236). Academic Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10/gd32bv DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-438150-6.50018-2

Brembs, B., Lenardic, A., Murray-Rust, P., Chan, L., & Irawan, D. E. (2023). Mastodon over Mammon: Towards publicly owned scholarly knowledge. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), 230207. https://doi.org/10/gstkx9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230207

Brick, C., Hood, B., Ekroll, V., & De-Wit, L. (2022). Illusory essences: A bias holding back theorizing in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 491–506. https://doi.org/10/gmdj5f DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621991838

Bringmann, L., Elmer, T., & Eronen, M. (2022). Back to basics: The importance of conceptual clarification in psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 340–346. https://doi.org/10/gqmqg5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221096485

Bschir, K., & Lohse, S. (2022). Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19. Synthese, 200(6), 441. https://doi.org/10/gq5cz9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03923-4

Cartwright, N. (2021). Rigour versus the need for evidential diversity. Synthese, 199, 13095–13119. https://doi.org/10/gstkzb DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03368-1

Castanho Silva, B., Jungkunz, S., Helbling, M., & Littvay, L. (2020). An empirical comparison of seven populist attitudes scales. Political Research Quarterly, 73(2), 409–424. https://doi.org/10/ghx8nm DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919833176

Chang, H. (2007). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press.

Crutzen, R., & Peters, G.-J. Y. (2023a). The regression trap: Why regression analyses are not suitable for selecting determinants to target in behavior change interventions. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 11(1). https://doi.org/10/k2x9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2023.2268684

Crutzen, R., & Peters, G.-J. Y. (2023b). A lean method for selecting determinants when developing behavior change interventions. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 11(1), 2167719. https://doi.org/10/js9b DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2023.2167719

De Graaf, A., Van den Putte, B., Nguyen, M.-J., Zebregs, S., Lammers, J., & Neijens, P. (2017). The effectiveness of narrative versus informational smoking education on smoking beliefs, attitudes and intentions of low-educated adolescents. Psychology & Health, 32(7), 810–825. https://doi.org/10/gstkzd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1307371

Devezer, B., Nardin, L., Baumgaertner, B., & Buzbas, E. (2019). Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216125. https://doi.org/10/gf86cs DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216125

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10/fqqbmr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Earp, B., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621. https://doi.org/10/gfpn82 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621

Eronen, M., & Bringmann, L. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10/ghw2x3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586

Eronen, M., & Romeijn, J.-W. (2020). Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological theory. Theory & Psychology, 30(6), 786–799. https://doi.org/10/ghqcr8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320969876

Feyerabend, P. (1965). Problems of empiricism. In R. Colodny (Ed.), Beyond the edge of certainty. Essays in contemporary science and philosophy. (pp. 145–260). Prentice-Hall.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020

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. https://doi.org/10/ghnbdg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct Validation in Social and Personality Research: Current Practice and Recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10/gbf8nx DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063

Fried, E. (2017a). The 52 symptoms of major depression: Lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales. Journal of Affective Disorders, 208, 191–197. https://doi.org/10/gcsk3p DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.019

Fried, E. (2017b). What are psychological constructs? On the nature and statistical modeling of emotions, intelligence, personality traits and mental disorders. Health Psychology Review, 11(2), 130–134. https://doi.org/10/gfj8tz DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1306718

Fried, E. (2020). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10/ghsbbk DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853461

Fried, E., & Nesse, R. (2015). Depression sum-scores don’t add up: Why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 72. https://doi.org/10/f67sz8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0325-4

Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574

Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., & Hazelton, M. (2017). Visual Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Autophotography and Photo Elicitation Applied to Mental Health Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10/gfvmq8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748215

Gruijters, S., Fleuren, B., & Peters, G.-J. (2021). Crossing the seven Cs of internal consistency: Assessing the reliability of formative instruments. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10/g5sh DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qar39

Guest, O., & Martin, A. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10/ghvcwr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585

Hagger, M. (2014). Avoiding the “déjà-variable” phenomenon: Social psychology needs more guides to constructs. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 52. https://doi.org/10/gd7fkx DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00052

Hale, J., Hastings, J., West, R., Lefevre, C., Direito, A., Bohlen, L., Godinho, C., Anderson, N., Zink, S., Groarke, H., & Michie, S. (2020). An ontology-based modelling system (OBMS) for representing behaviour change theories applied to 76 theories. Wellcome Open Research, 5, 177. https://doi.org/10/ghgnb5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16121.1

Hawkins-Elder, H., & Ward, T. (2020). Theory construction in the psychopathology domain: A multiphase approach. Theory & Psychology, 30(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10/ghvmvg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319893026

Hodson, G. (2021). Construct jangle or construct mangle? Thinking straight about (nonredundant) psychological constructs. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(4), 576–590. https://doi.org/10/gng6pw DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.120

Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Aust, F., & Aczel, B. (2020). Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing (C. R. Sugimoto, Ed.). PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0244611. https://doi.org/10/gk347c DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244611

Huls, S., Van Osch, S., Brouwer, W., Van Exel, J., & Stiggelbout, A. (2022). Psychometric evaluation of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-2013): Assessing the reliability, dimensionality and validity in the general population and a patient population. Psychology & Health, 37(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10/gstkzf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1851689

Kok, G., & Ruiter, R. (2014). Who has the authority to change a theory? Everyone! A commentary on Head and Noar. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 61–64. https://doi.org/10/gstkzg DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.840955

Kruisbrink, M. (2022). Towards enhanced management of fear of falling in older people: Unravelling interventions and measuring related avoidance of activity [Doctoral dissertation, Maastricht University] [ISBN: 9789464217124]. https://doi.org/10/kxkf

Lakens, D. (2019). The value of preregistration for psychological science: A conceptual analysis. Japanese Psychological Review, 62(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10/gk9jpb DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbh4w

Lakens, D., & DeBruine, L. (2021). Improving transparency, falsifiability, and rigor by making hypothesis tests machine-readable. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 251524592097094. https://doi.org/10/gmbq55 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920970949

Landy, J., Jia, M., Ding, I., Viganola, D., Tierney, W., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., Ebersole, C., Gronau, Q., Ly, A., Van den Bergh, D., Marsman, M., Derks, K., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Proctor, A., Bartels, D., Bauman, C., Brady, W., ... Uhlmann, E. (2020). Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results. Psychological Bulletin, 146(5), 451–479. https://doi.org/10/ggj87k DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220

Lawson, K., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Sibling constructs: What are they, why do they matter, and how should you handle them? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 344–366. https://doi.org/10/gm62mr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211047101

Leising, D., & Borgstede, M. (2019). Hypothetical constructs. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10/kxkb DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_679-1

Lonsdorf, T., Merz, C., & Fullana, M. (2019). Fear extinction retention: Is it what we think it is? Biological Psychiatry, 85(12), 1074–1082. https://doi.org/10/ggw7x6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.02.011

Marques, M. M., Wright, A. J., Corker, E., Johnston, M., West, R., Hastings, J., Zhang, L., & Michie, S. (2023). The Behaviour Change Technique Ontology: Transforming the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. Wellcome Open Research, 8, 308. https://doi.org/10/kxj9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19363.1

Maul, A. (2017). Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 15(2), 51–69. https://doi.org/10/gf5stn DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2017.1348108

Metz, G., Peters, G.-J., & Crutzen, R. (2022). Acyclic Behavior Change Diagrams: A tool to report and analyze interventions. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine. https://doi.org/10/hrz4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mzc4u

Miyakawa, T. (2020). No raw data, no science: Another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain, 13, 24. https://doi.org/10/ggmgw6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2

Moreau, D., & Wiebels, K. (2022). Psychological constructs as local optima. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(4), 188–189. https://doi.org/10/grhkxq DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00042-2

Murray-Rust, P. (2018). Open data in science. Nature Precedings. https://doi.org/10/gnkn6x

Nasa, P., Jain, R., & Juneja, D. (2021). Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World Journal of Methodology, 11(4), 116–129. https://doi.org/10/gmpjvz DOI: https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116

Nosek, B., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific Utopia: I. Opening scientific communication [arXiv: 1205.1055]. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10/gcsk27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215

Nosek, B., Ebersole, C., DeHaven, A., & Mellor, D. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10/gc6xk8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

Nosek, B., Spies, J., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10/f4fc2k DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058

Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10/gf8dr6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10/bwmj6n DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10/68c DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Oude Maatman, F. (2021). Psychology’s theory crisis, and why formal modelling cannot solve it. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10/jspz DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/puqvs

Panasiuk, S. (2023). Life Satisfaction: DCT specification [Publisher: Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10/kqtb

Panc, T., Mihalcea, A., & Panc, I. (2012). Self-efficacy survey: A new assessment tool. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 880–884. https://doi.org/10/gk6fwr DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.248

Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. https://doi.org/10/gckf56 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253

Peters, G.-J. Y., Crutzen, R., Roozen, S., & Kok, G. (2020). The Reasoned Action Approach represented as a Decentralized Construct Taxonomy (DCT). https://a-bc.gitlab.io/dct-raa/

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10/f8fqdb DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965

Ponnock, A., Muenks, K., Morell, M., Seung Yang, J., Gladstone, J., & Wigfield, A. (2020). Grit and conscientiousness: Another jangle fallacy. Journal of Research in Personality, 89, 104021. https://doi.org/10/ghcrsz DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104021

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10/gmxbks DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

Robinaugh, D., Haslbeck, J., Ryan, O., Fried, E., & Waldorp, L. (2021). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10/gh65nn DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974697

Rohrer, J., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E., DeBruine, L., Heyman, T., Jones, B., Schmukle, S., Silberzahn, R., Willén, R., Carlsson, R., et al. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the loss-of-confidence project. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10/gh6f6r DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964106

Romppel, M., Herrmann-Lingen, C., Wachter, R., Edelmann, F., Düngen, H.-D., Pieske, B., & Grande, G. (2013). A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 10. https://doi.org/10/ggbbw8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t69316-000

Santor, D., Gregus, M., & Welch, A. (2006). Eight decades of measurement in depression. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 135–155. https://doi.org/10/fcmm9d DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0403_1

Scheel, A. M. (2022). Why most psychological research findings are not even wrong. Infant and Child Development, 31(1). https://doi.org/10/gn8sks DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2295

Schnell, T., Spitzenstätter, D., & Krampe, H. (2022). Compliance with COVID-19 public health guidelines: An attitude-behaviour gap bridged by personal concern and distance to conspiracy ideation. Psychology & Health, 37(12), 1680–1701. https://doi.org/10/gm35dt DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1974861

Siegling, A., & Petrides, K. (2016). Zeroing in on mindfulness facets: Similarities, validity, and dimensionality across three independent measures. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0153073. https://doi.org/10/f8w3hz DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153073

Skinner, E. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 549–570. https://doi.org/10/d9q7cv DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.549

Smaldino, P. (2008). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In Computational social psychology (pp. 311–331). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173726-14

Smaldino, P. (2016). Not even wrong: Imprecision perpetuates the illusion of understanding at the cost of actual understanding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e163. https://doi.org/10/gjfx4j DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500151X

Snippe, M. H. M., Peters, G.-J. Y., & Kok, G. (2021). The operationalization of self-identity in reasoned action models: A systematic review of self-identity operationalizations in three decades of research. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 9(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10/gmzj98 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2020.1852086

Snippe, M. H. M., Peters, G.-J. Y., & Kok, G. (2023). Determining the Conceptual Independence of Self-Identity in Reasoned Action Models. https://doi.org/10/kdwx DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ke2vx

Spadaro, G., Tiddi, I., Columbus, S., Jin, S., Ten Teije, A., CoDa Team, & Balliet, D. (2022). The Cooperation Databank: Machine-Readable Science Accelerates Research Synthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1472–1489. https://doi.org/10/gstkzh DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211053319

Szollosi, A., Kellen, D., Navarro, D., Shiffrin, R., Van Rooij, I., Van Zandt, T., & Donkin, C. (2020). Is preregistration worthwhile? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 94–95. https://doi.org/10/ggf3pd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.009

Taylor, J., Nailer, E., Cohen, C., Redman, C., & Sherman, S. (2022). HPV vaccination and cervical screening: The knowledge and attitudes of mothers of adolescent girls. Psychology & Health. https://doi.org/10/gstkzj DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2022.2081327

Uhlmann, E. L., Ebersole, C., Chartier, C., Errington, T., Kidwell, M., Lai, C., McCarthy, R., Riegelman, A., Silberzahn, R., & Nosek, B. (2019). Scientific Utopia III: Crowdsourcing science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 711–733. https://doi.org/10/gf4jhq DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619850561

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science (tech. rep.). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949

Van Der Maas, H. L. J., Molenaar, D., Maris, G., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2011). Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. Psychological Review, 118(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10/drf5nw DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022749

Van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory development requires an epistemological sea change. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10/gjzbzq DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853477

Van Tuijl, P., Verboon, P., & Van Lankveld, J. (2023). Initial development and validation of item banks to measure problematic hypersexuality. Open Research Europe, 3, 129. https://doi.org/10/gstkzk DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16131.1

Van Tuijl, P., Verboon, P., & Van Lankveld, J. J. D. M. (2023). Three Quarks for Hypersexuality Research. Sexes, 4(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10/kqjb DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes4010011

van Es, K. (2023). Unpacking tool criticism as practice, in practice. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 017(2). https://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/17/2/000692/000692.html

Vazire, S. (2018). Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10/gd59dt DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617751884

Vazire, S., Schiavone, S., & Bottesini, J. (2022). Credibility beyond replicability: Improving the four validities in psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(2), 162–168. https://doi.org/10/grht5z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211067779

Warnell, K., & Redcay, E. (2019). Minimal coherence among varied theory of mind measures in childhood and adulthood. Cognition, 191, 103997. https://doi.org/10/gf3787 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.009

Weidman, A., Steckler, C., & Tracy, J. (2017). The jingle and jangle of emotion assessment: Imprecise measurement, casual scale usage, and conceptual fuzziness in emotion research. Emotion, 17(2), 267–295. https://doi.org/10/f9w6ff DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000226

West, R. (2021). PAT: An on-line paper authoring tool for writing up randomized controlled trials. Addiction, 116(8), 1938–1940. https://doi.org/10/gstkzm DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15508

West, R., Godinho, C., Bohlen, L., Carey, R., Hastings, J., Lefevre, C., & Michie, S. (2019). Development of a formal system for representing behaviour-change theories. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 526. https://doi.org/10/gf5fmd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0561-2

Williams, D., & Rhodes, R. (2016). The confounded self-efficacy construct: Review, conceptual analysis, and recommendations for future research. Health Psychology Review, 10(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10/ggzktz DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998

Wolf, M. G., Ihm, E. D., Maul, A., & Taves, A. (2023). The Response Process Evaluation Method (preprint). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10/rbd2x DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rbd2x

Wood, C., Conner, M., Sandberg, T., Godin, G., & Sheeran, P. (2014). Why does asking questions change health behaviours? The mediating role of attitude accessibility. Psychology & Health, 29(4), 390–404. https://doi.org/10/gf83n2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.858343

Yarkoni, T. (2020). Implicit realism impedes progress in psychology: Comment on Fried (2020). Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 326–333. https://doi.org/10/ghzsjk DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853478

Zollman, K. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10/dnjk7f DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6