Extending Lawson and Robins’ (2021) Guideline for the Evaluation of Jingle and Jangle Fallacies

Jingle and jangle fallacies pose two massive problems in psychological assessment. A jinglefallacy occurs when equally named constructs/measures in fact assess different constructs. Ajangle fallacy exists if differently named constructs/measures in fact measure the same concept.A guideline presented by Lawson and Robins (2021,https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211047101) helps evaluate specific aspects of assumed jingleand jangle fallacies. While the checklist itself is well-elaborated, aspects mentioning thestatistical evaluation of the (dis)similarity of the observed nomological networks requireextensions and differentiations. Therefore, I recommend three analytical advancements, namely(a) the derivation of correlation difference hypotheses concerning validation criteria with whichthe allegedly jingled (jangled) variables are assumed to be correlated equally (differently), (b)procedures for the derivation of cutoffs to evaluate the overall similarity of the nomologicalnetworks on the basis of the elemental approach (Kay & Arrow, 2022,https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12662), and (c) the recommendation to compare test informationtrajectories from an item response-theoretical perspective. I conclude that all extensions helpimprove the evaluation of assumed jingle and jangle fallacies, which arguably increases thestability and reliability of research findings.