Retest reliability is a better predictor of validity than is internal consistency. One explanation for this is item-specific variance, which distinguishes different nuances of a facet and contributes to retest reliability but not internal consistency. Specific variance at the facet level is temporally stable, consensually validated, and heritable; a consideration of the role of specific variance in personality measures leads to a distinction between traits as the intersection (∩) versus the union (∪) of their constituents. I discuss specific variance at the item level and its implications for scale development and argue that retest reliability outpredicts internal consistency because item-specific variance has been shown to be observable, and is probably heritable and stable. I consider some implications of these ideas for the use of single-item scales, the causal interpretation of traits, and the notion of scalar equivalence. Finally, I note that the sources of random error in scales are still poorly understood.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert R. McCrae (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: