273:
measurements that are supposed to be unrelated are, in fact, unrelated. Take, for example, a construct of general happiness. If a measure of general happiness had convergent validity, then constructs similar to happiness (satisfaction, contentment, cheerfulness, etc.) should relate positively to the measure of general happiness. If this measure has discriminant validity, then constructs that are not supposed to be related positively to general happiness (sadness, depression, despair, etc.) should not relate to the measure of general happiness. Measures can have one of the subtypes of construct validity and not the other. Using the example of general happiness, a researcher could create an inventory where there is a very high positive correlation between general happiness and contentment, but if there is also a significant positive correlation between happiness and depression, then the measure's construct validity is called into question. The test has convergent validity but not discriminant validity.
305:) are not indicators of intelligence, but volume of the brain is. Removing the theory of phrenology from the nomological net of intelligence and adding the theory of brain mass evolution, constructs of intelligence are made more efficient and more powerful. The weaving of all of these interrelated concepts and their observable traits creates a "net" that supports their theoretical concept. For example, in the nomological network for academic achievement, we would expect observable traits of academic achievement (i.e. GPA, SAT, and ACT scores) to relate to the observable traits for studiousness (hours spent studying, attentiveness in class, detail of notes). If they do not then there is a problem with measurement (of
328:(MTMM) is an approach to examining construct validity developed by Campbell and Fiske (1959). This model examines convergence (evidence that different measurement methods of a construct give similar results) and discriminability (ability to differentiate the construct from other related constructs). It measures six traits: the evaluation of convergent validity, the evaluation of discriminant (divergent) validity, trait-method units, multitrait-multimethods, truly different methodologies, and trait characteristics. This design allows investigators to test for: "convergence across different measures...of the same 'thing'...and for divergence between measures...of related but conceptually distinct 'things'.
73:(1998) have pushed for a unified view of construct validity "...as an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores..." While Messick's views are popularized in educational measurement and originated in a career around explaining validity in the context of the testing industry, a definition more in line with foundational psychological research, supported by data-driven empirical studies that emphasize statistical and causal reasoning was given by (Borsboom et al., 2004).
116:, etc.). This made it difficult to tell which ones were actually the same and which ones were not useful at all. Until the middle of the 1950s, there were very few universally accepted methods to validate psychological experiments. The main reason for this was because no one had figured out exactly which qualities of the experiments should be looked at before publishing. Between 1950 and 1954 the APA Committee on Psychological Tests met and discussed the issues surrounding the validation of psychological experiments.
366:". Among the questions used around the time of World War I in the battery used to measure intelligence was "In which city do the Dodgers play?" (they were then based in Brooklyn). Recent immigrants to the US from Eastern Europe unfamiliar with the sport of baseball got the answer wrong, and this was used to infer that Eastern Europeans had lower intelligence. The question did not measure intelligence: it only measured how long one had lived in the US and become accultured to a popular pastime.
241:(SEM), and other statistical evaluations. It is important to note that a single study does not prove construct validity. Rather it is a continuous process of evaluation, reevaluation, refinement, and development. Correlations that fit the expected pattern contribute evidence of construct validity. Construct validity is a judgment based on the accumulation of correlations from numerous studies using the instrument being evaluated.
147:
substantive component, structural component, and external component. They are closely related to three stages in the test construction process: constitution of the pool of items, analysis and selection of the internal structure of the pool of items, and correlation of test scores with criteria and other variables.
1058:
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 102−134).
272:
Convergent and discriminant validity are the two subtypes of validity that make up construct validity. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which two measures of constructs that theoretically should be related, are in fact related. In contrast, discriminant validity tests whether concepts or
228:
Evaluation of construct validity requires that the correlations of the measure be examined in regard to variables that are known to be related to the construct (purportedly measured by the instrument being evaluated or for which there are theoretical grounds for expecting it to be related). This is
291:
defines a construct by illustrating its relation to other constructs and behaviors. It is a representation of the concepts (constructs) of interest in a study, their observable manifestations, and the interrelationship among them. It examines whether the relationships between similar construct are
146:
was that it placed more emphasis on theory as opposed to validation. This emphasis was designed to address a core requirement that validation include some demonstration that the test measures the theoretical construct it purported to measure. Construct validity has three aspects or components: the
91:
Scale purification, i.e. "the process of eliminating items from multi-item scales" (Wieland et al., 2017) can influence construct validity. A framework presented by
Wieland et al. (2017) highlights that both statistical and judgmental criteria need to be taken under consideration when making scale
300:
are considered highly related constructs. Through the observation of their underlying components psychologists developed new theoretical constructs such as: controlled attention and short term loading. Creating a nomological net can also make the observation and measurement of existing constructs
309:
or studiousness), or with the purported theory of achievement. If they are indicators of one another then the nomological network, and therefore the constructed theory, of academic achievement is strengthened. Although the nomological network proposed a theory of how to strengthen constructs, it
253:
are yet another method of evaluating construct validity. Intervention studies where a group with low scores in the construct is tested, taught the construct, and then re-measured can demonstrate a test's construct validity. If there is a significant difference pre-test and post-test, which are
150:
In the 1970s there was growing debate between theorists who began to see construct validity as the dominant model pushing towards a more unified theory of validity, and those who continued to work from multiple validity frameworks. Many psychologists and education researchers saw "predictive,
248:
may be utilized. Pilot studies are small scale preliminary studies aimed at testing the feasibility of a full-scale test. These pilot studies establish the strength of their research and allow them to make any necessary adjustments. Another method is the known-groups technique, which involves
127:
in their seminal article "Construct
Validity In Psychological Tests". They noted the idea that construct validity was not new at that point; rather, it was a combination of many different types of validity dealing with theoretical concepts. They proposed the following three steps to evaluate
166:
In 1989 Messick presented a new conceptualization of construct validity as a unified and multi-faceted concept. Under this framework, all forms of validity are connected to and are dependent on the quality of the construct. He noted that a unified theory was not his own idea, but rather the
162:
the inter-relatedness of the three different aspects of validity was recognized: "These aspects of validity can be discussed independently, but only for convenience. They are interrelated operationally and logically; only rarely is one of them alone important in a particular situation".
973:
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., & Grassia, J. (1986). Generalizing over conditions by combining the multitrait multimethod matrix and the representative design of experiments (No. CRJP-255A). Colorado
University At Boulder Center For Research On Judgment And
30:
is the accumulation of evidence to support the interpretation of what a measure reflects. Modern validity theory defines construct validity as the overarching concern of validity research, subsuming all other types of validity evidence such as
51:, which is correlated with scores on a given measure (although it is not directly observable). Construct validity examines the question: Does the measure behave like the theory says a measure of that construct should behave?
376:
experimental designs should be used where possible. That is, the evaluator of a particular participant should be unaware of what intervention has been performed on that particular participant or should be independent of the
351:
brightening the ambient light levels improved worker productivity. They eventually determined the basis for this paradoxical result: workers who were aware of being observed worked harder no matter what the change in the
233:(MTMM) of examining construct validity described in Campbell and Fiske's landmark paper (1959). There are other methods to evaluate construct validity besides MTMM. It can be evaluated through different forms of
42:
Construct validity is the appropriateness of inferences made on the basis of observations or measurements (often test scores), specifically whether a test can reasonably be considered to reflect the intended
1130:
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). An introduction to communication in the classroom: The role of communication in teaching and training. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
249:
administering the measurement instrument to groups expected to differ due to known characteristics. Hypothesized relationship testing involves logical analysis based on theory or prior research.
167:
culmination of debate and discussion within the scientific community over the preceding decades. There are six aspects of construct validity in
Messick's unified theory of construct validity:
292:
considered with relationships between the observed measures of the constructs. A thorough observation of constructs relationships to each other it can generate new constructs. For example,
635:
Polit DF Beck CT (2012). Nursing
Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 9th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Wolters Klower Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
100:
Throughout the 1940s scientists had been trying to come up with ways to validate experiments prior to publishing them. The result of this was a plethora of different validities (
822:
Wieland, A., Durach, C.F., Kembro, J. & Treiblmaier, H. (2017), Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale purification, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 22, No. 4,
645:
Messick, S. (1995). "Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning".
1069:
Ackerman P. L.; Beier M. E.; Boyle M. O. (2002). "Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities".
672:
Schotte, C. K. W.; Maes, M.; Cluydts, R.; De
Doncker, D.; Cosyns, P. (1997). "Construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory in a depressive population".
250:
113:
101:
287:
Lee
Cronbach and Paul Meehl (1955) proposed that the development of a nomological net was essential to the measurement of a test's construct validity. A
158:
1242:
347:: in a 1925 industrial ergonomics study conducted at the Hawthorne Works factory outside Chicago, experimenters observed that both lowering
208:
How construct validity should properly be viewed is still a subject of debate for validity theorists. The core of the difference lies in an
76:
Key to construct validity are the theoretical ideas behind the trait under consideration, i.e. the concepts that organize how aspects of
174:– What are the potential risks if the scores are invalid or inappropriately interpreted? Is the test still worthwhile given the risks?
88:
states that, "The best construct is the one around which we can build the greatest number of inferences, in the most direct fashion."
372:
may be communicated unintentionally to the participants non-verbally, eliciting the desired effect. To control for this possibility,
54:
Construct validity is essential to the perceived overall validity of the test. Construct validity is particularly important in the
1022:
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of
Marketing Research, 133-145.
785:
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van
Heerden, J. (2004). The Concept of Validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071.
807:
336:
Apparent construct validity can be misleading due to a range of problems in hypothesis formulation and experimental design.
395:(covariates): The root cause for the observed effects may be due to variables that have not been considered or measured.
343:: If the participant knows, or guesses, the desired end-result, the participant's actions may change. An example is the
192:– Do the interrelationships of dimensions measured by the test correlate with the construct of interest and test scores?
44:
408:
1262:
325:
319:
230:
238:
433:
301:
more efficient by pinpointing errors. Researchers have found that studying the bumps on the human skull (
47:. Constructs are abstractions that are deliberately created by researchers in order to conceptualize the
155:, construct validity was the whole of validity from a scientific point of view" In the 1974 version of
939:
Campbell D. T. (1959). "Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix".
838:
Loevinger J (1957). "Objective Tests As Instruments Of Psychological Theory: Monograph Supplement 9".
907:
Messick, S. (1995). "Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment".
1163:
709:
448:
1158:
1032:
Dimitrov D. M.; Rumrill Jr P. D. (2003). "Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change".
1139:
Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. 2nd edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
363:
267:
244:
Most researchers attempt to test the construct validity before the main research. To do this
1104:
Edgington, E. S. (1974). "A new tabulation of statistical procedures used in APA journals".
306:
8:
418:
288:
282:
263:
1247:
1226:
1176:
920:
855:
768:
530:
492:
36:
23:
685:
399:
An in-depth exploration of the threats to construct validity is presented in Trochim.
1086:
1041:
1005:
985:
956:
859:
803:
772:
689:
522:
428:
413:
359:
1207:
1180:
1168:
1113:
1078:
997:
948:
916:
896:(3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan. pp. 13–103.
847:
760:
718:
681:
654:
579:
534:
512:
504:
443:
423:
384:
344:
109:
32:
600:
387:
to measure happiness will exclude relevant information from outside the workplace.
254:
analyzed by statistical tests, then this may demonstrate good construct validity.
453:
234:
55:
48:
1172:
1082:
1001:
786:
722:
658:
297:
217:
70:
1212:
1195:
764:
1256:
851:
584:
567:
458:
438:
245:
143:
135:
developing ways to measure the hypothetical constructs proposed by the theory
105:
63:
1149:
MacKenzie S. B. (2003). "The dangers of poor construct conceptualization".
1090:
1045:
1009:
960:
823:
526:
373:
293:
209:
186:– Is the theoretical foundation underlying the construct of interest sound?
142:
Many psychologists noted that an important role of construct validation in
124:
81:
693:
391:
77:
24:
indicators represent or reflect a concept that is not directly measurable
517:
198:– Does the test have convergent, discriminant, and predictive qualities?
1229:, Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd edition.
302:
213:
204:– Does the test generalize across different groups, settings and tasks?
120:
85:
59:
1117:
952:
508:
310:
doesn't tell us how we can assess the construct validity in a study.
1068:
132:
articulating a set of theoretical concepts and their interrelations
751:
Messick, Samuel (1998). "Test validity: A matter of consequence".
358:(intentional or unintentional). An example of this is provided in
617:
565:
180:– Do test items appear to be measuring the construct of interest?
119:
Around this time the term construct validity was first coined by
1196:"Construction of confounding plans for mixed factorial designs"
1031:
707:
Guion, R. M. (1980). "On trinitarian doctrines of validity".
1034:
Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation
671:
1248:
Provides a visual representation of the nomological network
983:
550:
1193:
546:
544:
257:
892:
Messick, S. (1989). "Validity.". In R. L. Linn (ed.).
986:"Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures"
541:
1220:
159:
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
151:concurrent, and content validities as essentially
1254:
1103:
740:. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
622:. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
331:
313:
1148:
938:
138:empirically testing the hypothesized relations
490:
990:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
909:Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
833:
831:
787:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
568:"Construct validity in software engineering"
566:Sjøberg, D. I. K.; Bergersen, G. R. (2022).
486:
484:
482:
480:
478:
476:
474:
1151:Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
1071:Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
934:
932:
930:
837:
493:"Construct validity in psychological tests"
797:
791:
638:
602:Interpretation of educational measurements
1243:Useful reference guide for research terms
1211:
1162:
967:
900:
885:
828:
583:
572:IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
516:
471:
927:
824:https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0230
700:
665:
906:
891:
750:
744:
729:
644:
631:
629:
381:Defining predicted outcome too narrowly
16:Measure of indicator representativeness
1255:
1059:Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
984:Westen Drew; Rosenthal Robert (2003).
866:
598:
491:Cronbach, L. J.; Meehl, P. E. (1955).
276:
1200:The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
735:
706:
615:
872:
626:
258:Convergent and discriminant validity
551:Cook T. D.; Campbell D. T. (1979).
13:
1194:White D.; Hultquist R. A. (1965).
921:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x
873:Kane, M. T. (2006). "Validation".
14:
1274:
1236:
1187:
1142:
1133:
1124:
1097:
1062:
1052:
1025:
1016:
977:
816:
779:
409:Statistical conclusion validity
674:Journal of Affective Disorders
609:
592:
559:
1:
1227:Threats to Construct Validity
686:10.1016/s0165-0327(97)00094-3
464:
332:Threats to construct validity
326:multitrait-multimethod matrix
320:Multitrait-multimethod matrix
314:Multitrait-multimethod matrix
231:multitrait-multimethod matrix
223:
738:Testing in language programs
619:Testing in language programs
239:structural equation modeling
7:
1173:10.1177/0092070303031003011
1083:10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.567
798:Pennington, Donald (2003).
599:Kelley, Truman Lee (1927).
555:. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
434:Reliability (psychometrics)
402:
383:. For instance, using only
356:Bias in experimental design
22:concerns how well a set of
10:
1279:
1002:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.608
753:Social Indicators Research
723:10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.385
659:10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.741
317:
280:
261:
95:
852:10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
585:10.1109/TSE.2022.3176725
92:purification decisions.
1213:10.1214/aoms/1177699997
894:Educational Measurement
875:Educational Measurement
765:10.1023/a:1006964925094
710:Professional Psychology
605:. New York: World Book.
449:Jingle-jangle fallacies
370:Researcher expectations
941:Psychological Bulletin
497:Psychological Bulletin
69:Psychologists such as
66:and language studies.
1263:Validity (statistics)
1106:American Psychologist
840:Psychological Reports
800:Essential Personality
736:Brown, J. D. (1996).
647:American Psychologist
616:Brown, J. D. (1996).
553:Quasi-experimentation
392:Confounding variables
364:The Mismeasure of Man
268:discriminant validity
307:academic achievement
251:Intervention studies
229:consistent with the
128:construct validity:
28:Construct validation
419:Ecological validity
341:Hypothesis guessing
289:nomological network
283:nomological network
277:Nomological network
264:convergent validity
212:difference between
84:, etc. are viewed.
114:empirical validity
102:intrinsic validity
37:criterion validity
20:Construct validity
809:978-0-340-76118-2
429:External validity
414:Internal validity
360:Stephen Jay Gould
1270:
1230:
1224:
1218:
1217:
1215:
1206:(4): 1256–1271.
1191:
1185:
1184:
1166:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1131:
1128:
1122:
1121:
1118:10.1037/h0035846
1101:
1095:
1094:
1066:
1060:
1056:
1050:
1049:
1029:
1023:
1020:
1014:
1013:
981:
975:
971:
965:
964:
953:10.1037/h0046016
936:
925:
924:
904:
898:
897:
889:
883:
882:
870:
864:
863:
835:
826:
820:
814:
813:
795:
789:
783:
777:
776:
748:
742:
741:
733:
727:
726:
704:
698:
697:
669:
663:
662:
642:
636:
633:
624:
623:
613:
607:
606:
596:
590:
589:
587:
578:(3): 1374–1396.
563:
557:
556:
548:
539:
538:
520:
509:10.1037/h0040957
488:
444:Logical validity
424:Content validity
385:job satisfaction
345:Hawthorne effect
202:Generalizability
110:logical validity
33:content validity
1278:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1253:
1252:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1221:
1192:
1188:
1164:10.1.1.417.7311
1147:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1102:
1098:
1067:
1063:
1057:
1053:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1017:
982:
978:
972:
968:
937:
928:
905:
901:
890:
886:
871:
867:
836:
829:
821:
817:
810:
796:
792:
784:
780:
749:
745:
734:
730:
705:
701:
670:
666:
643:
639:
634:
627:
614:
610:
597:
593:
564:
560:
549:
542:
489:
472:
467:
454:Lee J. Cronbach
405:
334:
322:
316:
285:
279:
270:
262:Main articles:
260:
235:factor analysis
226:
210:epistemological
98:
56:social sciences
49:latent variable
17:
12:
11:
5:
1276:
1266:
1265:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1238:
1237:External links
1235:
1232:
1231:
1219:
1186:
1157:(3): 323–326.
1141:
1132:
1123:
1096:
1077:(4): 567–589.
1061:
1051:
1040:(2): 159–165.
1024:
1015:
996:(3): 608–618.
976:
966:
926:
899:
884:
865:
846:(3): 635–694.
827:
815:
808:
790:
778:
759:(1–3): 35–44.
743:
728:
717:(3): 385–398.
699:
680:(2): 115–125.
664:
653:(9): 741–749.
637:
625:
608:
591:
558:
540:
503:(4): 281–302.
469:
468:
466:
463:
462:
461:
456:
451:
446:
441:
436:
431:
426:
421:
416:
411:
404:
401:
397:
396:
388:
378:
367:
362:'s 1981 book "
353:
333:
330:
318:Main article:
315:
312:
298:working memory
281:Main article:
278:
275:
259:
256:
225:
222:
218:postpositivist
206:
205:
199:
193:
187:
181:
175:
140:
139:
136:
133:
97:
94:
71:Samuel Messick
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1275:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1228:
1223:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1190:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1145:
1136:
1127:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1100:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1065:
1055:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1028:
1019:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
980:
970:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:(2): 81–105.
946:
942:
935:
933:
931:
922:
918:
914:
910:
903:
895:
888:
880:
876:
869:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
834:
832:
825:
819:
811:
805:
801:
794:
788:
782:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
747:
739:
732:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
703:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
668:
660:
656:
652:
648:
641:
632:
630:
621:
620:
612:
604:
603:
595:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
562:
554:
547:
545:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
487:
485:
483:
481:
479:
477:
475:
470:
460:
459:Paul E. Meehl
457:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
439:Face validity
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
406:
400:
394:
393:
389:
386:
382:
379:
377:experimenter.
375:
371:
368:
365:
361:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
329:
327:
321:
311:
308:
304:
299:
295:
290:
284:
274:
269:
265:
255:
252:
247:
246:pilot studies
242:
240:
236:
232:
221:
219:
215:
211:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
172:Consequential
170:
169:
168:
164:
161:
160:
154:
148:
145:
144:psychometrics
137:
134:
131:
130:
129:
126:
122:
117:
115:
111:
107:
106:face validity
103:
93:
89:
87:
83:
79:
74:
72:
67:
65:
64:psychometrics
61:
57:
52:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
29:
25:
21:
1222:
1203:
1199:
1189:
1154:
1150:
1144:
1135:
1126:
1109:
1105:
1099:
1074:
1070:
1064:
1054:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1018:
993:
989:
979:
969:
944:
940:
912:
908:
902:
893:
887:
878:
874:
868:
843:
839:
818:
799:
793:
781:
756:
752:
746:
737:
731:
714:
708:
702:
677:
673:
667:
650:
646:
640:
618:
611:
601:
594:
575:
571:
561:
552:
518:11299/184279
500:
496:
398:
390:
380:
374:double-blind
369:
355:
352:environment.
348:
340:
335:
323:
294:intelligence
286:
271:
243:
227:
207:
201:
195:
189:
183:
177:
171:
165:
156:
152:
149:
141:
125:Lee Cronbach
118:
99:
90:
82:intelligence
75:
68:
53:
41:
27:
19:
18:
220:theorists.
184:Substantive
78:personality
915:(4): 5–8.
802:. Arnold.
465:References
303:phrenology
224:Evaluation
214:positivist
190:Structural
121:Paul Meehl
86:Paul Meehl
60:psychology
1159:CiteSeerX
860:145640521
773:142684085
45:construct
1257:Category
1091:12500864
1046:12671209
1010:12635920
961:13634291
881:: 17–64.
527:13245896
403:See also
196:External
1181:5930358
974:Policy.
694:9479615
535:5312179
178:Content
96:History
1179:
1161:
1112:: 61.
1089:
1044:
1008:
959:
858:
806:
771:
692:
533:
525:
153:ad hoc
1177:S2CID
856:S2CID
769:S2CID
531:S2CID
1087:PMID
1042:PMID
1006:PMID
957:PMID
804:ISBN
690:PMID
523:PMID
324:The
296:and
266:and
216:and
157:The
123:and
35:and
1208:doi
1169:doi
1114:doi
1079:doi
1075:131
998:doi
949:doi
917:doi
848:doi
761:doi
719:doi
682:doi
655:doi
580:doi
513:hdl
505:doi
349:and
1259::
1204:36
1202:.
1198:.
1175:.
1167:.
1155:31
1153:.
1110:29
1108:.
1085:.
1073:.
1038:20
1036:.
1004:.
994:84
992:.
988:.
955:.
945:56
943:.
929:^
913:14
911:.
877:.
854:.
842:.
830:^
767:.
757:45
755:.
715:11
713:.
688:.
678:46
676:.
651:50
649:.
628:^
576:49
574:.
570:.
543:^
529:.
521:.
511:.
501:52
499:.
495:.
473:^
237:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
80:,
62:,
58:,
39:.
26:.
1216:.
1210::
1183:.
1171::
1120:.
1116::
1093:.
1081::
1048:.
1012:.
1000::
963:.
951::
923:.
919::
879:4
862:.
850::
844:3
812:.
775:.
763::
725:.
721::
696:.
684::
661:.
657::
588:.
582::
537:.
515::
507::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.