The Problem of Scale Contamination and Construct Validity in Mental Health, Social Science and Spirituality-Related Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/hscc.31277Keywords:
scale contamination, mental health, religion, spirituality, moral injury, PTSD, chaplaincyAbstract
This article explores the pervasive issue of scale contamination and its impact on construct validity in mental health, social science, and spirituality-related research. Scale contamination occurs when measurement tools designed to assess one specific domain inadvertently incorporate elements from unrelated constructs, leading to confusion regarding what the scale is actually measuring. The blending of distinct psychological domains, such as depression, anxiety and well-being, undermines measurement precision, leading to skewed research conclusions and misguided clinical practices. The failure to detect or address contamination can perpetuate errors in treatment efficacy, particularly in areas such as mental health and spirituality, where precise measurement is crucial. This article emphasizes the importance of ensuring construct validity, which refers to the accurate measurement of specific concepts such as moral injury or posttraumatic stress disorder, and it highlights the risk of conflating distinct constructs. The widespread use of contaminated scales, often adopted without critical evaluation, poses a significant threat to the integrity of research outcomes. In order to address these challenges, this study advocates for rigorous scale development and validation processes, encouraging researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors to scrutinize the psychometric properties of scales. By ensuring that scales measure only the intended constructs, future research can produce more accurate and meaningful results, leading to improved clinical interventions and policy decisions.
References
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Drummond, D. A., & Carey, L. B. (2019). Assessing spiritual well-being in residential aged care: An exploratory review. Journal of Religion and Health, 58, 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-018-0717-9
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/10.1177/1948550617693063
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Koenig, H. G. (2011). Spirituality & health research: Methods, measurement, statistics and resources. West Conshohocken: Templeton Press.
Koenig, H.G., & Al Zaben, F. (2021). Psychometric Validation and Translation of Religious and Spiritual Measures. Journal of Religion and Health, 60, 3467–3483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01373-9
Koenig, H. G., & Carey, L. B. (2024). Religion, spirituality, and health research: Warning of contaminated scales. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-024-02112-6
Slocum-Gori, S. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (1998). A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. The Journal of General Psychology, 125(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309809595576
