Content area
Full Text
The use of operational definitions, though examined philosophically, has not been sufficiently examined from a practical perspective. The practice of operationalization offers obvious benefits to empirical researchers but suffers from a lack of attention to what has been referred to as translation validity. Because the relation between an operational definition and its underlying construct can never be measured, the quality of translation validity must be established through conceptual argumentation as well as more traditional means such as converging operations and historical precedent in the literature. More specifically, we suggest that any use of operational definitions should involve best practices related to three conceptual tasks: (a) clarification, in which researchers reflect on and clarify their potential operationalizations, (b) specification, in which researchers specify and take account of the difference between the construct of interest and what was actually studied via operational definitions, and (c) justification, in which researchers assess and defend the translation validity of their particular operationalizations.
Keywords: operational definitions, translation validity, underlying constructs
One of the most widely conducted method practices in psychology is one of the least examined - operationalizing. Virtually every psychological method text considers operationalization, or the use of operational definitions, to be a necessity for the proper conduct of psychological research. Bordens and Abbott (1999), for example, are straightforward:"... without using operational definitions, questions cannot be answered meaningfully" (p. 30). Similarly, other method texts assert that psychological researchers "must operationalize" (Furlong, Lovelace, and Lovelace, 2000, p. 63; Krathwohl, 2009, p. 141), and that rigorous studies "need" or "require" operationalization (Borg and Gall; 1989, p. 65; Krathwohl, 2009, p. 140) because an operational definition ". gives meaning to a variable..." (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000, p. 43; see also Privitera, 2014, p. 89).
Yet, perhaps surprisingly given its pervasiveness, operationalization has received relatively little critical examination. As we will attempt to show, such examinations have been "sporadic" or "rarely voiced" (Feest, 2005, p. 131; Shean, 2013, p. 74), with most treating operationism as a philosophy of science that is evaluated negatively due to its connection with positivism or post-positivism (e.g., Bickard, 2001; Leahey, 1980; Michell, 2013). Even so, there is no unanimity in such criticism. Feest (2005), for example, has challenged the supposed connection between operationism and positivism.
Our purpose...