N
Nomological Nets
Franzis Preckel1 and Martin Brunner2
1
Department of Psychology, Chair of Giftedness
Research and Education, University of Trier,
Trier, Germany
2
Berlin-Brandenburg Institute for School Quality,
Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Introduction
The term “nomological net” has been coined in
the seminal paper by Cronbach and Meehl (1955)
on construct validity (see also American Psycho-
logical Association 1954). Cronbach and Meehl
introduced the idea of construct validity to vali-
date theoretical attributes or qualities (i.e., con-
structs) for which there is no adequate criterion or
which cannot be defined operationally, for exam-
ple, personality traits or intelligence. The concept
of construct validity as defined by Cronbach and
Meehl did not only refer to measures of con-
structs, as did the earlier validity concepts of con-
tent validity or predictive validity, but intertwined
the construct validation of measures with theory
testing. According to construct validity theory, a
construct is implicitly defined by its position in a
network of other constructs that is deduced from
theory and based on scientific laws – the “nomo-
logical net” (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). The
laws in the nomological net or network
(nomological: Greek for lawful) relate different
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1334-1
constructs to each other (i.e., theoretical rela-
tions), at least some of these constructs to obser-
vations and the different observations to each
other (i.e., empirical relations). In a nutshell, a
nomological network can be understood as a sys-
tem of scientific laws that relates constructs to
each other and to observations. Campbell and
Fiske (1959) extended construct validity theory
by pointing out that theoretical as well as empir-
ical relations should not only focus on convergent
validity of related attributes but also on discrimi-
nant validity of unrelated attributes.
The Nomological Net Idea in Behavioral
Science
The concept of the nomological network has been
highly influential in research in the behavioral
sciences and is still widely used. For example, a
recent PsychINFO search in May 2016 revealed
655 journal articles published in the new millen-
nium in the field of differential or personality
psychology and assessment that apply the terms
“nomological net” or “nomological network”
(Search string: “nomological net” OR “nomolog-
ical network” AND “personality differences” OR
“individual differences” OR “differential psychol-
ogy” OR “measurement” OR “assessment” OR
“diagnosis” OR “testing” OR “psychometrics”).
Most of these publications, however, are not
concerned with the concept of the nomological
network per se but rather use this term to frame
2 Nomological Nets
their research (e.g., “investigation of the nomo-
logical network of construct x”). Scientific
research and debates on the concept of the nomo-
logical network as such have typically been moti-
vated to clarify the concept of construct validity
and the practice of construct validation.
If constructs are defined by their position in a
nomological net, the availability of such a lawful
network of relations deduced from theory is a
precondition for construct validation of measures
and theories. Psychological theories often lack
this theoretical precision. This has led to a disso-
ciation between construct validity qua theory and
the practice of construct validation (Brennan
2013), a weakening of the theory testing part of
construct validity (Colliver et al. 2012), and a
renewed discussion of the concept of validity as
such (Borsboom et al. 2004; Embretson 2007;
Newton and Shaw 2013; Special Issue on Validity
of the Journal of Educational Measurement,
2013, 50/1).
Nomological Nets and Construct
Validation
The nomological network idea provides no frame-
work for addressing practical validation issues.
Nevertheless, it helps to refine the construct vali-
dation process. Specifically, Cronbach (1988)
contrasted programs of strong and weak construct
validation. Strong programs are based on fully
developed formal theories (i.e., nomological
nets) and deductive theory testing, while weak
programs are based on less developed theories
that – put to the extreme – would allow
interpreting any relation as validation evidence
(“anything goes”). Strong and weak programs
combine in construct validation in “an iterative
process in which tests of partially developed the-
ories provide information that leads to theory
refinement and elaboration, which in turn pro-
vides a sounder basis for subsequent construct
and theory validation research” (Strauss and
Smith 2009, p. 9; see already Cronbach and
Meehl 1955, for a discussion of these top-down
and bottom-up processes in construct validation).
In doing so, construct validation becomes an
open-ended process in which validity is an overall
evaluative judgment of the degree to which theo-
retical arguments and empirical findings support
the plausibility and appropriateness of interpreta-
tions and uses of test scores (Messick 1995). Kane
(2001, 2013) offered a pragmatic argument-based
approach to construct validation that should avoid
the extremes of the strong and weak program,
thus, fitting better to actual research practice. In
the argument-based approach, construct validity
is established through theoretical and empirical
evidence for a specific and clearly proposed use
or interpretation of a measure instead of rigorous
theory or nomological network testing (cf. Kane
2013).
In construct validation studies, convergent and
discriminant relations are typically reported as
correlations; researchers rarely refer to logical
arguments or experimental results. Correlations
can be estimated within a latent variable frame-
work, e.g., by confirmatory factor analysis or
structural equation modeling. When using such
confirmatory methods, the nomological network
idea guides psychological research in differential
and personality psychology by pinpointing the
importance of theory in the formulation of
hypotheses about convergent and discriminant
construct relations, by linking constructs to obser-
vations, by distinguishing between latent relations
and observed relations, by distinguishing between
conceptual and empirical overlap, or by
distinguishing between theoretically and opera-
tionally defined constructs. There are various
tools available to visually display network rela-
tions (e.g., Epskamp et al. 2012), as well as
methods to evaluate construct validity based on
convergent and discriminant construct relations
(Westen and Rosenthal 2003).
Challenges
However, despite more than 50 years of research
on nomological nets and construct validity, many
open questions regarding theory and application
of the nomological network idea remain:
Nomological Nets
First, convergent validity arguments are fre-
quently based on correlations. High correla-
tions of two or more measures of the same
construct are interpreted in support of the con-
vergent validity of a measure. However, no
consensus has yet been reached on what con-
stitutes a high enough correlation or how to
deal with inconsistent correlational findings.
Correlations are also influenced by the psycho-
metric properties of a measure, the sample, or
the method of assessment (e.g., tests, self-
report). Further, for construct validation, there
is the need to differentiate between the level of
observations and the level of constructs. These
aspects are not consistently taken into account
in current validation studies (Schweizer 2012).
Taken together, these issues undermine the
idea of convergent validity as a vague and
somewhat indetermined concept
(Schweizer 2012).
Second, when measures of different constructs are
not meaningfully correlated, this is typically
interpreted as supporting the discriminant
validity of these measures. However, many
validation studies lack a clear theoretical ratio-
nale for selecting constructs for discriminant
relations (Ziegler et al. 2013). Frequently, the-
oretically unrelated constructs are chosen.
However, to strongly support the construct
validity of measures of (new) constructs, it is
most informative to investigate relations
between different but closely related constructs
(Shaffer et al. 2015; Ziegler et al. 2013). And
again, there is the need to differentiate between
the level of observations and the level of con-
structs (see Shaffer et al. 2015, for a guideline
for conducting a discriminant validation study
that takes these aspects into account).
Third, the nomological net relates theoretical con-
structs to observations assessed with a certain
method. Methods refer to key factors that
define the measurement process. That is,
so-called method factors (e.g., rater response
styles, characteristics of the item wording,
high- vs. low-stakes measurement contexts)
may introduce systematic variance over and
above variance attributable to the target con-
struct. Method factors may threaten the
3
construct validity of a measure, particularly,
because method variance has been estimated
to make up between 18 and 32 percent of the
total item variance (Podsakoff et al. 2012). Fur-
ther, the nature of method variance remains
elusive as theories explaining the phenomena
producing method variance are scarce (Ziegler
et al. 2013). Podsakoff et al. (2012) present an
overview of procedural and statistical
approaches that may help to minimize the
impact of method variance.
Fourth, Embretson (1983) differentiates two com-
ponents of construct validity: nomothetic span
and construct representation. While nomothetic
span comprises convergent and discriminant
relations of a measure, construct representation
refers to a cognitive theory that explains
response behavior for that measure. Nomologi-
cal nets include laws that relate constructs to
observations, that is, construct representation;
however, most studies that use the nomological
network idea focus on convergent and discrim-
inant relations or nomothetic span and neglect
construct representation. But if we lack a theory
of response behavior, that is, if we cannot
explain our data, an important precondition for
interpreting nomothetic span is missing.
Borsboom et al. (2004) therefore argue for a
shift to an attribute-based view of measurement
that assigns validity to a measure only if theo-
retical and empirical arguments support the
assumption that an attribute causes the measure-
ment outcomes. In this respect, rational or
theory-based item and test construction as well
as scaling and scoring of test behavior become
of paramount importance (Brennan 2013).
Conclusion
The idea of the nomological net was introduced to
guide construct validation. To this end, the net-
work in its strong form specifies the laws that
explain to what extent and why theoretical con-
structs are related with each other and with
corresponding measures. In its strong form, the
network also informs on the circumstances (i.e.,
moderator variables) when these relations can or
4 Nomological Nets
cannot be observed. Given its iterative nature, the
nomological network idea underscores that theory
development hinges on both clear construct defi-
nitions (see Podsakoff et al. 2016, for guidelines)
and the development of excellent measures.
References
American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical
recommendations for psychological tests and diagnos-
tic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2, Suppl.).
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J.
(2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review,
111, 1061–1071. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061.
Brennan, L. R. (2013). Commentary on “Validating the
Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores”. Journal of
Educational Measurement (Special Issue: Validity),
50, 74–83. doi:10.1111/jedm.12001.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
doi:10.1037/h0046016.
Colliver, J. A., Conlee, M. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2012).
From test validity to construct validity . . . and back?
Medical Education in Review, 46, 366–371.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04194.x.
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity
argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test
validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity
in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52,
281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957.
Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct
representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological
Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity: A universal
validity system or just another test evaluation proce-
dure? Educational Researcher, 36, 449–455.
doi:10.3102/0013189X07311600.
Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J.,
Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph:
Network visualizations of relationships in psychomet-
ric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–18.
doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i04.
Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x.
Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of
test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50,
1–73. doi:10.1111/jedm.12000.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment:
Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and
performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning.
American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.50.9.741.
Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D. (2013). Standards for talking
and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods,
18, 301–319. doi:10.1037/a0032969.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
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.
doi:10.1177/1094428115624965. Published online
before print.
Schweizer, K. (2012). On issues on validity and especially
on the misery of convergent validity. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 28, 249–254.
doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000156.
Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D., & Li, A. (2015). Tackling the
problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing
the discriminant validity of conceptually related con-
structs. Organizational Research Methods.
doi:10.1177/1094428115598239. Published online
before print.
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity:
advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 5, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.
clinpsy.032408.153639.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct
validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 608–618. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.84.3.608.
Ziegler, M., Booth, T., & Bensch, D. (2013). Getting
entangled in the nomological net. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 29, 157–161.
doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000173.