2025-06-25 –, Second floor 214
Research involving psychological constructs often require operational definitions. As such research areas evolve, different operational definitions tend to be chosen consistently across “camps”. However, psychological and neurobiological mechanisms that underpin constructs should be captured independently of the tools and definitions used.
One key pitfall of relying on a single operational definition is that it can be confused with the underlying construct. This can lead to an unintentional circularity where a construct is treated synonymously with whatever the measurement tool captures. Such circularity can stifle psychological research by considering the “meaning” of a construct as established by particular operationalizations.
Using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, this talk examines how varying operational definitions of “SuperAgers”—individuals with attenuated age-related cognitive decline—affect measurement. The findings highlight the consequences of relying on specific operational definitions and underscore the importance of grounding research in clearly defined constructs.
