What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to address how measure proliferation threatens I-O psychology by creating redundant assessments for the same constructs.

June 5, 2026Open Access

Too many ways to measure the same thing: Measure proliferation in I-O psychology

Key Points

The aim is to address how measure proliferation threatens I-O psychology by creating redundant assessments for the same constructs.
Discussed the differences between construct and measure proliferation.
Analyzed the impact of academic reward structures on construct proliferation.
Proposed that both issues need to be tackled together to avoid fragmentation.
Highlighted that measure proliferation complicates empirical synthesis and theory development.
Emphasized that this issue undermines the practical application of research findings.
Argued that addressing measure proliferation is critical alongside construct proliferation to enhance clarity in the field.

Abstract

Measure proliferation as a compounding threat to our future Bowling et al.'s focal article, Read my lips: No new constructs!Construct proliferation as a threat to the future of I-O psychology (2026), offers a timely and compelling diagnosis of a problem that has quietly intensified within industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology.As the authors document, construct proliferation, the introduction of ostensibly distinct constructs that are conceptually or empirically redundant with existing ones, has become increasingly prevalent, with the number of recognized constructs in I-O psychology more than doubling since 2013 (Anvari et al., 2025).The authors persuasively argue that although construct proliferation may occasionally serve useful purposes, it is "usually bad," largely inevitable, and frequently incentivized by prevailing academic reward structures (Bowling et al., 2026, p. 2).Most concerning, construct proliferation undermines parsimony, impedes cumulative knowledge, and complicates the translation of research findings into practice.We largely concur with this assessment and applaud the focal article's call for an increased scrutiny of the introduction of new constructs.Nonetheless, we believe it is important to maintain a distinction between construct and method (e.g., Arthur & Villado, 2008).In this commentary, we extend this conversation by arguing that measure proliferation, the proliferation of multiple, often redundant, but potentially nonequivalent instruments intended to assess the same construct, poses an additional and compounding threat to theory development, empirical synthesis, and applied utility.Whereas construct proliferation concerns the multiplication of labels and conceptual definitions for similar phenomena, measure proliferation concerns the unchecked multiplication of scales and instruments used to operationalize a single construct.Although these problems are analytically distinct, they are deeply intertwined in practice, and addressing construct proliferation without simultaneously confronting measure proliferation risks leaving a major source of fragmentation intact.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper