To V Or Not To V

To V or Not to V

Validity scales are one type of response style measure used in psychological testing. They are designed as subscales within a test to help assess the honesty and effort of the test-taker, indicating whether responses are genuine or influenced by factors such as carelessness or deliberate deception (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2013, p. 406). The primary purpose of validity scales is to evaluate if the test-taker responded thoughtfully and truthfully, thereby assisting psychologists in interpreting test results appropriately. Importantly, validity pertains to the test itself—the instrument's capacity to measure what it claims to measure in a specific context—rather than solely the test-taker’s demeanor (Cohen et al., 2013). This implies that the validity of a test is dependent on its design and application rather than solely on the individual's responses.

An illustrative example of a validity scale is the "fake good" scale. Individuals may "fake good" when presenting themselves in a favorable light, such as during a first date, selectively emphasizing positive traits to appear more attractive or competent. Conversely, individuals can "fake bad," intentionally exaggerating deficiencies or problems, such as feigning illness to avoid work or secure compensation. In psychological assessments, validity scales aim to detect such response distortions, providing insight into whether responses are reliable. This is particularly critical because biased responses can significantly distort the interpretation of psychological functioning, program assessments, and treatment planning (Cohen et al., 2013).

To strengthen the validity of assessment outcomes, psychologists often adopt a multi-method approach. This includes conducting interviews, behavioral observations, and reviewing relevant records—educational, health, psychological, or from third parties—to gather comprehensive information about the test-taker. Integrating this data helps validate or contextualize the test results, reducing reliance on a single source of information and mitigating the potential influence of response biases (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). For robust inferences, it is essential that the evaluator possesses appropriate training, education, and credentials, ensuring accuracy in administering and interpreting assessments (AERA, 2014).

While some literature, such as the textbook Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014), does not explicitly emphasize the role of validity scales, Cohen et al. (2013) note that validity scales are a crucial aspect of personality assessments and are necessary to detect response inconsistencies (p. 416). Their utility lies in providing a quick indication of test-taking effort and honesty, which is valuable in clinical, educational, and forensic settings (Cohen et al., 2013). A notable example is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A), which includes multiple scales beyond the basic ones, such as supplementary, content, Harris-Lingoes, and social introversion scales, to improve score comparability and interpretive accuracy (Cohen et al., 2013, p. 434).

However, employing validity scales also presents disadvantages. They require trained and competent administrators to interpret accurately. Furthermore, test-takers can still deceive or misunderstand questions, which could lead to false positives or negatives regarding response validity. This highlights the importance of comprehensive assessment practices that combine multiple data sources and explicit effort to detect response biases, especially in personality testing where self-report validity significantly impacts outcomes.

References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.