Construct · 6 fields · 7 citations

Where does construct collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningvaliditycompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to construct is validity.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

MEEHL, 1948 → 1955SAME WORD · NO CONTACTconstruct6 CONSTRUCTSPsychometricsLATENT · NOMOLOGICAL NETPhilosophy of sci.EXISTS · OR ABBREVIATESPersonal constructKELLY · BIPOLAR · PERSONALSociologyMADE BY AGREEMENTLinguisticsFORM–MEANING PAIRINGMolecular biologyENGINEERED · CHIMERIC

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Psychometrics

a postulated attribute of people, assumed to be reflected in test performance and grounded in a nomological network.

A postulated attribute of people, assumed to be reflected in test performance, Cronbach and Meehl's 1955 definition, written to say what a test could be valid for when no criterion exists. A construct earns its standing from the nomological network around it: the lawful relations between it, other constructs, and observables. This is the meaning in which resilience, trust, and engagement are constructs, and the meaning this whole site is about. It is inferred, never observed, and it is only as real as the network holds.[1]

Unit
An attribute of persons, inferred from indicators
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Scales and tests; validated through convergent, discriminant, and predictive evidence

Philosophy of science

a term asserting the existence of an unobserved process or entity, unlike an intervening variable that only summarizes observed relations.

MacCorquodale and Meehl drew the line in 1948: an intervening variable is a convenient summary of observed relations and asserts nothing beyond them, while a hypothetical construct asserts the existence of something (a process, an entity) not reducible to the observations. The distinction is about ontological commitment. Cronbach and Meehl's psychometric construct, seven years later, inherited the second reading, which is why validity in that tradition is about whether the thing is really there.[2]

Unit
A term in a theory
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Not measured, evaluated by what the theory commits to and whether the commitment pays off

Personal construct psychology

a bipolar distinction, such as good versus bad, that a person uses to interpret their world and anticipate events.

A distinction a person uses to make sense of their world (good–bad, safe–dangerous, like-me–not-like-me) organized into a personal system that anticipates events. Kelly's 1955 theory made the person the scientist and the construct their instrument; the repertory grid elicits an individual's constructs rather than scoring them on a researcher's. Here a construct belongs to the person being studied, not to the person doing the studying.[3]

Unit
A person's own system of distinctions
Recovery means
Reconstruing, revising a construct that no longer anticipates well
Measured by
Repertory grid technique; elicited, not imposed

Sociology

something that exists because people collectively treat it as existing, such as money, marriage or a diagnosis.

Something that exists because people collectively treat it as existing (money, marriage, a diagnosis, a race category) and that would not exist, or not in that form, without the treating. Berger and Luckmann's 1966 account made the mechanism explicit: habit becomes institution, institution is handed on as objective reality. Hacking's later question, the social construction of what?, is the field's own jingle check: the phrase is applied to ideas, to people, and to things, and it means something different in each case.[4][5]

Unit
A category or institution within a society
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Not measured, traced historically and institutionally

Linguistics

a learned pairing of form and meaning, from a single word to an abstract pattern, that speakers store and combine.

A learned pairing of form and meaning (from a single word to an idiom to an abstract pattern like the ditransitive) that speakers store and combine. Goldberg's construction grammar treats the whole of a language as an inventory of such pairings, with no separate module for syntax. The word is construction rather than construct, but the two collide constantly in searches and in cross-disciplinary reading.[6]

Unit
A form–meaning pairing in a speaker's knowledge
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Corpus frequency, acceptability judgments, acquisition data

Molecular biology

an artificially assembled piece of DNA, such as a vector carrying a gene, built to be put into a cell.

An artificially assembled piece of DNA (a vector carrying a gene, a promoter, a reporter) built to be put into a cell. When the parts come from different genes or species the result is a chimeric construct, a phrase in routine use for decades. This is the only meaning on the page in which a construct is a physical object you can pipette, and the only one in which "chimera" is a technical term rather than a metaphor.[7]

Unit
A molecule
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Sequencing; expression assays

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how construct sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

validity6 fields · 10 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsculture4 fields · 9 citationsjingle · one word, four constructsintelligence6 fields · 14 citationsjingle · one name, six constructs

References

  1. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
  2. MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056029
  3. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1–2). Norton.
  4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
  5. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674812000
  6. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
  7. Sambrook, J., & Russell, D. W. (2001). Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual (3rd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct