Palabras clave
Estudios de Validación
Enfermería
Encuestas y Cuestionarios
Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
Evaluación en Salud
Cómo citar
Resumen
Objetivo: Discutir la relación entre teorías de medición, modelos psicométricos y validez, destacando las implicaciones para los instrumentos utilizados en salud y enfermería. Método: Artículo de reflexión teórico-conceptual, orientado por una crítica de la literatura sobre medición, psicometría y validez. Desarrollo: La discusión diferencia cuantificar, medir, modelar estadísticamente y validar interpretaciones de las puntuaciones; analiza las críticas a la cuantificación acrítica; y aproxima las teorías de medición, los modelos psicométricos y los enfoques contemporáneos a problemas como el dolor, el autocuidado, la adherencia terapéutica, la seguridad del paciente, las competencias clínicas y la calidad de vida. Conclusión: La validez depende de la coherencia entre la naturaleza del constructo, la lógica de medición, el modelo psicométrico, las evidencias producidas, el contexto de uso y las consecuencias de las decisiones basadas en las puntuaciones.
Referencias
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing [Internet]. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 2014 [cited 2026 May 20]. Available from: https://ncme.org/resources/books/testing-standards/
Maul A, Wilson M, Irribarra DT. On the conceptual foundations of psychological measurement. J Phys Conf Ser. 2013;459(1):012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/459/1/012008
Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 2002.
Michell J. Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Campbell NR. Physics: the elements. Cambridge: University Press; 1920.
Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science. 1946;103(2684):677-680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677. PMID: 17750512.
Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol. 1964;1(1):1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, Tversky A. Foundations of measurement: Additive and polynomial representations. New York: Academic Press; 1971.
Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1988.
Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015.
Borsboom D, Scholten AZ. The Rasch model and conjoint measurement theory from the perspective of psychometrics. Theory Psychol. 2008;18(1):111-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086925
Golino HF, Gomes CMA, Amantes A, Coelho G. Psicometria contemporânea: compreendendo os modelos de Rasch. Belo Horizonte: Artesã Editora; 2019.
Kyngdon A. The Rasch model from the perspective of the representational theory of measurement. Theory Psychol. 2008;18(1):89-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086924
Pasquali L. TRI: teoria da resposta ao item: teoria, procedimentos e aplicações. Curitiba: Appris; 2018.
Michell J. Is psychometrics pathological science? Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):7-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035489.
Michell J. Invalidity in validity. In: Lissitz RW, editor. The concept of validity: revisions, new directions, and applications. Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing; 2009. p. 111-133.
Barrett P. The consequence of sustaining a pathology: scientific stagnation—a commentary on the target article “Is psychometrics a pathological science?” by Joel Michell. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):78-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035521
Hood SB. Comments on Borsboom's typology of measurement theoretic variables and Michell's assessment of psychometrics as “pathological science”. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):93-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035554
Kane MT. The benefits and limitations of formality. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):101-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035562
Michell J. Rejoinder. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):125-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802121917
Rupp AA. Lost in translation? Meaning and decision making in actual and possible worlds. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):117-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035612
Trendler G. Measurement theory, psychology, and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory Psychol. 2009;19(5):579-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309341926
Tafreshi D, Slaney KL, Neufeld SD. Quantification in psychology: critical analysis of an unreflective practice. J Theor Philos Psychol. 2016;36(4):233-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000048
Markus KA, Borsboom D. The cat came back: evaluating arguments against psychological measurement. Theory Psychol. 2012;22(4):452-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310381155
Markus KA, Borsboom D. Frontiers of test validity theory: Measurement, causation, and meaning. New York: Routledge; 2013.
Borsboom D. Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
Borsboom D. The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika. 2006;71(3):425-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6. PMID: 19946599.
Borsboom D. Latent variable theory. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):25-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035497
Borsboom D. A tour guide to the latent realm. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):134-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802121941
Borsboom D. What is causal about individual differences? A comment on Weinberger. Theory Psychol. 2015;25(3):362-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315587784.
Borsboom D, Markus KA. Truth and evidence in validity theory. J Educ Meas. 2013;50(1):110-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12006
Borsboom D, Wijsen LD. Psychology's atomic bomb. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2017;24(3):440-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1333084
Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ, Kievit RA, Scholten AZ, Franic S. The end of construct validity. In: Lissitz RW, editor. The concept of validity. Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing; 2011. p. 135-170.
Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, van Heerden J. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychol Rev. 2003;110(2):203-219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203. PMID: 12747522.
Buntins M, Buntins K, Eggert F. Clarifying the concept of validity: From measurement to everyday language. Theory Psychol. 2017;27(5):703-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317702256
Haig BD. Aspects of latent variable theory. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):88-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035547.
Haig BD, Borsboom D. On the conceptual foundations of psychological measurement. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035471
Howell RD. Observed variables are indeed more mysterious than commonly supposed. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):97-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802121826.
Maraun MD, Halpin PF. Manifest and Latent Variates. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):113-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035596
Maul A. Method effects and the meaning of measurement. Front Psychol. 2013;4:169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169. PMID: 23596427.
Messick S. Validity. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational measurement. 3rd ed. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Company; 1989. p. 13-103.
McDonald RP. Behavior domains in theory and in practice. Alberta J Educ Res. 2003;49(3):212-230. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/ajer.v49i3.54980
Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
Guyon H, Kop JL, Juhel J, Falissard B. Measurement, ontology, and epistemology: psychology needs pragmatism-realism. Theory Psychol. 2018;28(2):149-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318761606
Beath KJ. randomLCA: an R package for latent class with random effects analysis. J Stat Softw. 2017;81(13):1-25. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i13
Cervone D, Caldwell TL. From Measurement Theory To Psychological Theory, in Reverse. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):84-88.
De Boeck P, Wilson M, editors. Explanatory Item Response Models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer; 2004.
Embretson SE. A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: application to abstract reasoning. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(3):380-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.380
Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Fried EI. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behav Res Methods. 2018;50(1):195-212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1. PMID: 28342071.
Falmagne JC. Elements of psychophysical theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 1985.
Fried EI, Cramer AOJ. Moving forward: Challenges and directions for psychopathological network theory and methodology. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12(6):999-1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617705892. PMID: 28873325.
Guyon H, Falissard B, Kop JL. Modeling psychological attributes in psychology: an epistemological discussion: network analysis vs. latent variables. Front Psychol. 2017;8:798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00798. PMID: 28572780.
Hohensinn C. pcIRT: an R package for polytomous and continuous Rasch models. J Stat Softw. 2018;84(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v084.c02
Lalanne C. Applied psychometrics with illustrations in R. Paris: OpenEdition; 2010.
Li Y. Using the open-source statistical language R to analyze the dichotomous Rasch model. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38(3):532-541. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192809. PMID: 17186765.
Linzer DA, Lewis JB. poLCA: an R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. J Stat Softw. 2011;42(10):1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i10.
Mislevy RJ. How cognitive science challenges the educational measurement tradition. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect. 2008;6(1-2):124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802131635.
Rupp AA, Templin J, Henson RA. Diagnostic measurement: theory, methods, and applications. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.
Guilford JP. Psychometric methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954.
Pasquali L. Psicometria: teoria e aplicações: a teoria clássica dos testes psicológicos. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília; 1997.
Pasquali L, editor. Instrumentos psicológicos: manual prático de elaboração. Brasília: LabPAM/IBAPP; 1999.
Pasquali L. Psicometria: teoria dos testes na psicologia e na educação. 4. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2004.
Spearman C. “General intelligence”, objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol. 1904;15(2):201-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
Spearman C. Correlations of sums or differences. Br J Psychol. 1913;5(4):417-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1913.tb00072.x
Crocker L, Llabre M, Miller MD. The generalizability of content validity ratings. J Educ Meas. 1988;25(4):287-299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1988.tb00309.x.
Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N, Gleser GC. Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory. Br J Stat Psychol. 1963;16(2):137-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00206.x.
Gleser GC, Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N. Generalizability of scores influenced by multiple sources of variance. Psychometrika. 1965;30(4):395-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289531. PMID: 5217607.
Jackson DJR, Michaelides G, Dewberry C, Englert P. Clarifying the scope of generalizability theory for multifaceted assessment. N Z J Psychol [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2026 May 18]; 51(2):53-64. Available from: https://www.psychology.org.nz/application/files/7316/6631/4271/Jackson_53-64.pdf
Marcoulides GA. Generalizability theory. In: Tinsley H, Brown S, editors. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. p. 527-551.
Rowley GL. Application of generalizability theory to observational studies: Limitations. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 1986 Apr 16-20; San Francisco, CA. Washington (DC): AERA; 1986.
Garson GD. Validity and reliability. Asheboro (NC): Statistical Publishing Associates; 2016.
McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
Protzko J. Invariance: what does measurement invariance allow us to claim? Educ Psychol Meas. 2025;85(3):458-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241282982. PMID: 39554770.
Damásio BF. Uso da análise fatorial exploratória em psicologia. Aval Psicol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2026 May 18]; 11(2):213-228. Available from: https://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?pid=S1677-04712012000200007&script=sci_abstract
Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Wang J, Wang X. Structural equation modeling: applications using Mplus. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2020.
Wölming S, Wikström C. The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2010;17(2):117-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003693856
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2026 Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing