Construct Validation Standards and the Team Descriptive Index: Reply to Dowling



Lee, Stephanie M.
Koopman, Joel
Hollenbeck, John R.
Wang, Linda C.
Lanaj, Klodiana

Access rights

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title


Academy of Management


For the last 60 years, scale development efforts in Psychology and Management have closely followed psychometric theory and procedures outlined by Cronbach and Meehl (1955). While many have improved and positively added to psychometric practices (e.g., Bentler, 1990; Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Jöreskog, 1969; Nunnally, 1978; Reckase, 2009; Schwab, 1980), there have been attempts to develop alternative methods. One such approach is the C-OAR-SE procedure (Rossiter, 2002), which was recently used to evaluate the Team Descriptive Index (TDI; Lee et al., 2015) in “Commentary on the Team Descriptive Index” (Dowling, in press). In this response to the commentary, we offer a peer-review of the C-OAR-SE procedure and arguments for why we stand by the psychometric theory underlying the development of the TDI. It is our hope that our response will have value to future scholars who have utilized traditional psychometric methods to construct validate measures and face critiques on their methodology as we witnessed in “Commentary on the Team Descriptive Index.”




Lee, S. M., Koopman, J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wang, L. C., & Lanaj, K. (2020). Construct Validation Standards and the Team Descriptive Index: Reply to Dowling. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(4), 698-701.