Construct Validity vs.

Concept Validity

Edwin A. Locke
University of Maryland (Emeritus)
32122 Canyon Ridge Drive
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Tel.: 818 706 9361
elocke@rhsmith.umd.edu

2
Construct Validity vs. Concept Validity
Construct validity refers to validating your constructs based on their pattern of
correlations with other variables assumed to be indicators of or theoretically related to the
construct of interest (e.g., through nomological networks).There are three potential
problems with this approach to validation. The first is validating the dependent variables.
How do you know what the most relevant DV is? Second, how high does the
correlation(s) have to be to validate your construct? Third, if the correlations or pattern is
not what was predicted by your theory, how do you know if it is your measure(s) or your
theory that is wrong? Rather than trying to directly resolve these difficulties, I would like
to move the discussion to a deeper levelto the level of formulating and defining the
concepts themselves. I believe this is critical to achieving all forms of validity.
As someone who has been reviewing journal articles for more than 30 years, I
estimate that about 90% of the submissions I get suffer from problems of conceptual
clarity.
What is the cause of this problem? I believe it is that people do not actually know
what a concept is, how concepts are (properly) formed, and how they relate to definitions.
Modern philosophers have convinced people that concepts and definitions are subjective
(arbitrary) and we see the consequences repeatedly (Locke, 2003).
Lack of definitions
One consequence is the failure to define terms at all. Some years ago I saw a book written
by a scholar who was very famous in OB. I asked him why he did not define his major
concept in the book. He replied that he had encountered over 100 different definitions in

3
the literature and simply gave up. The problem for the reader then was: what is it that the
author means by the concept that his book is about?
Invalid concepts
There are concepts in the field that are simply invalid. One example is: organizational
self-esteem. An organization is an abstraction (a group of people with a common purpose)
and cannot have self-anything. What people who wrote about this seemed to mean was:
how much does the organization value me (a legitimate question)? (I have critiqued the
concept of emotional intelligence elsewhere; Locke 2005).
Disconnect between concepts and scales
There are concepts which are legitimate but which are used in a way that contradicts the
meaning of the concept. An example is interactional justice. Now this is a valid concept,
viz. does one person treat another in a fair or just manner? But the scales used to measure
this concept pertain only to treating people the same, viz. with consideration and integrity
(see Locke, 2003). The problem is that the concept justice implies treating people
differently, based on how they act, whereas the scale implies treating everyone the same.
This gets a more confusing because an existing term, procedural justice, refers to treating
everyone according to the same standards or procedures in order to insure distributive
justice (a separate concept), which entails different outcomes for different people
according to merit. If interactional justice is intended to mean the same thing as
procedural or distributive justice, the term is not needed. If it is meant to refer to
consideration and integrity, the scale should be re-named.

4
Disconnects between concept names and the items in the scales that allegedly
represent them are extremely common. As a reviewer I have observed hundreds of
examples over the years.
Undue concept multiplication
The other side of this coin is to make separate scales where one would be equally logical
and much simpler. I have seen papers with four or five scales with similar meaning and
all fairly highly correlated and correlated almost identically with other variables. This
makes for a logical mess in the analyses because so many models are possible
(Although this is a statistical issue, I want to point out something about what can
happen when there is a lot of covariation among variables when you put them into a
Lisrel model or the like. An r of .50 can turn to, say, -.50 solely because of the
covariation. This is called suppression (or a suppressor) variable but that has no
psychological meaning. It is a statistical artifact.)
Putting different concepts under one label
Here the problem is that there is one overall label but measures of several very different
concepts under it. Consider servant leadership. Given the name, relevant items would
imply the leader selflessly catering to the needs of subordinates, e.g., altruism. But one
might find other sub-scales included under this label such as emotional support
(psychotherapy?), wisdom (knowledge), persuasion, and integrity. There is no way such
diverse concepts can be integrated under one conceptual label.
This is not to say that concepts should never be grouped but the grouping should
be based on the components having some element in common. For example, the common

5
element in Core Self-Evaluations (self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and
emotional stability) is: Am I ok? Can I deal with lifes exigencies?
Making a concept too broad obliterates its meaning, e.g. positive psychology
seems to encompass just about everything good you can think of (Snyder & Lopez (2002)
e.g., positive emotions and traits, strength, virtue, work, education, insight, love, growth,
and play
Different scales labeled as the same concept
Different people may make up their own scales but call them by the same name, as has
happened in the case of goal orientation, a quasi-trait which can also function as a state.
The three traditional subscales (learning, LGO; performance-prove, PPO; and
performance-avoid orientation, PAO) made by one researchers do not always agree with
those of others because the subscales use some different items. For example, PPO items
may refer to proving oneself or to actually beating others (competitiveness), even though
proving oneself does not require competition. PAO items might refer to trying not to look
bad, not doing poorly or doing the least amount of work possible (laziness).
Objective Concept Formation
How can we be more clear about our concepts? I will use here Rands (1990)
theory of concepts as it is the most valid one that I know of.
Rands philosophically original theory of concept begins with the premise that all
concepts derive from and are reducible to the perceptual level. One observes that certain
entities are similar to one another and different from others (e.g., tables vs. chairs, the
difference being shape). One then integrates chairs into a single mental unit; one isolates
chair from other entities like tables by a process of abstraction. But how does it actually

6
work since, in reality, every chair or table is different from every other chair or table?
Rands critical insight here was to show that the key process (done subconsciously) is
measurement omission. A chair must fall within a certain range of measurements
involving shape but the measurements are not specified. One can then hold chair or table
as a single mental unit but the concept includes an unlimited number of units within the
same range of measurements. The measurements must exist in some quantity but it can be
any quantity (within a range.) Rand defines a concept as, a mental integration of two or
more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their measurements
omitted (Rand, 1990, p. 13). Higher level abstractions are formed by integrating lower
level ones. The important point here is that all (valid) concepts can be traced down to
(reduced to) the perceptual level. This keeps them tied to reality.
Concepts are neither just in the mind nor just in reality but are the form in which
the human minds grasps reality beyond the perceptual level. Observe that all this
contradicts Kants view that concepts are built into the human mind and have no
connection to reality. For Kant reality was unknowable. (For a fundamental critique of
Kants epistemology, see Ghate, 2003).
Concepts pertaining to consciousness are based on introspection. One can observe
both mental contents and mental processes. To form concepts of process (e.g., perception,
judgment, evaluation, imagination, thinking, emotion) one observes similarities among
certain processes that differentiate them from other processes and omits measurements of
the content and of the intensity of the process but assumes that they exist.
At higher levels of abstraction (e.g., leadership, justice) a complex chain of
abstractions is involved so that the process of reduction can be very complex. Consider

7
the concept of leadership (which I define for present purposes as: the process of guiding
and motivating others to pursue a common goal). This requires prior concepts such as:
human being (i.e., others), motivation, guidance, pursuit, common and goal. Each of
these concepts in turn (except human being which is a first level concept) depends on
other concepts.
Whats the role of definitions? As noted earlier, concepts are designated by a word
in order to make them into a single mental unit. This word can then stand for an unlimited
number of concretes. 1,000 can stand for 1,000 of anything (people, buildings, dollars,
miles, books, etc.). The word number itself can stand for any number.
What, then, are definitions and what is their role? Rand (1990, p.40) writes, A
definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a
concept.The purpose of a definition is to distinguish the concept from all other
concepts and thus keep its units differentiated from all other existents.
Definitions have two parts: genus which connects the concepts to a wider group
of existents and differentia which isolates the concept from other existents. Thus: man is
the rational (differentia) animal (genus). It is important to note that a definition is not the
same as a concept. The concept man includes everything known about man including
everything that might be discovered about man in the future. The definition states the
essentials, not the total characteristics of the concept.
Definitions are based on the context of knowledge at the time they are formulated
and may change as new discoveries are made. Red may be defined at first simply by
pointing and later by wavelength of light. But the concept of red does not change.

8
Changing the label on a file folder does not change whats in the folder, in this case the
concept.
What can be done, given the above, to insure greater conceptual clarity in our
field?

Some Guidelines for Insuring Conceptual Clarity

1. First, tie the concept to reality. Ask the question: what facts of reality give rise to
this concept? If the concept is psychological, it will require introspection (e.g.,
satisfaction, self-efficacy). Some concepts, like stress, require hard thinking
because it entails tying several existing concepts together (e.g., anxiety, threat,
values, uncertainty, implied action, etc.).
2. Second, formulate the definition scrupulously. Often it is best to start with a
dictionary, because a lot of the work has been done by others (sometimes over
decades of even centuries. Dont automatically assume definitions formed by
people in your field are good onesoften they are not). For example, altruism
(selflessness) is not the same as helping or cooperation. Dont blindly accept what
your colleagues offer (see Locke, 2003, for a critique of many current definitions
in the field).
3. Hold in mind that the purpose of a definition is not to impress others or to follow
the crowd but to identify the essentials of the concept. (by essentials I mean the
most fundamental characteristic that distinguishes it from other concepts and
accounts for the most other characteristics of the concept; Rand 1990, p. 45). Thus

9
man the rational animal is a better definition than man the entity that has a sense
of humor because the former is more fundamental.
4. Insure that the concept is clearly distinguished from related concepts (e.g., task
specific efficacy vs. self-esteem).
5. Insure that the concept is properly delimited; if it includes everything but the
kitchen sink, it has no coherent meaning.
6. Take great care to make sure that items created to measure a concept are logically
related to that concept. Dont be misled by correlations. In the social sciences
almost everything is correlated with everything else especially if the items are in
the same questionnaire. This does not insure logical equivalence. You have to look
at the actual item content too.
7. Dont group totally different concepts together and call them by one concept
name unless there is a fundamental link between the components.

References
Ghate, O. (2003) Postmodernisms Kantian roots. In E. A. Locke (Ed. ) Post modernism
and management: Pros, cons and the alternative. New York: JAI (Elsevier).
Locke, E. A. (2003) Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
Locke, E. A. (2005) Good definitions: The epistemological foundation of scientific
progress. In J. Greenberg (Ed.) Organizational Behavior. Mahwah NJ: L.
Erlbaum.
Rand, A. (1990) Introduction to Objectivist epistemology, Second Edition. New York:

10
NAL Books.
Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J. (2002) Handbook of positive psychology. New York:
Oxford.

10