English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

constructs should converge across methods is seldom met at the level implied in the original article. This is not to argue that the Platonic ideal is not appropriate. Rather, one of the major points we would like to make in this chapter is that the ideal of the MTMM approach is often taken too literally and is sometimes misused or misinterpreted. Why speak such apostasies? In large part, because we are motivated to reiterate points made, ironically, by Fiske himself (Fiske, 1971). What are these points? The first is that different methods, or modes as Fiske (1971) described them, are seldom innocuous. Thus, the literal assumption drawn from Campbell and Fiske (1959) that measures of similar constructs drawn from different methods should converge quite robustly is not met as often as we would like. This can lead to erroneous and nihilistic conclusions, such as the construct of interest, like depression, does not exist (e.g., Lewis, 1999). The second point is the assumption that monomethod studies are problematic, inadequate, and should be avoided at all costs. Or, conversely, we should all be doing multimethod studies. This directive fails to consider the empirical I fact just mentioned, which is that measures of the same construct seldom correlate highly enough across methods to warrant averaging across methods (Fiske, 1971). What are needed, rather than mandates to perform multimethod studies, are theoretical models that successfully incorporate and explain both the overlap and lack thereof of identical constructs across methods. In our following review, we will attempt to highlight the few theories and empirical examples that have done so. Our third point is that the focus on multiple methods has inadvertently led to a misguided boondoggle to search for the methodological holy grail—the one method that deserves our ultimate attention. Campbell and Fiske (1959) should not be saddled with full responsibility for this phenomenon beyond the fact that they made it clear that we should be pursuing multiple methods. Leave it to human nature that psychologists would take that idea and try to one up the multimethod approach by finding the ultimate method. Thus, we have had hyperbolic statements made for and against particular methods made since the 1960s. People have argued that self-reports are fundamentally flawed and indistinguishable from response styles (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988; Rorer, 1965), that observer ratings are the seat of personality psychology (Hofstee, 1994), that projective tests do not work (Dawes, 1994), and that we should prioritize online measures over all other techniques (KahnPublished (as Chapter 22) in Michael Eid and Ed Diener, eds., Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2006), pp. 321–335. Copyright © 2006 American Psychological Association. Used by permission. “This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA edition. It is not the copy of record.” Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology Brent W. Roberts, Peter Harms, Jennifer L. Smith, Dustin Wood, and Michelle Webb University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.