Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459625›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Beyond redundancy: rethinking construct proliferation through meaning, practice, and taxonomy.

Lorne M Hartman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Lorne M HartmanTranslational Research Program, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Construct proliferation (CP) in organizational research is typically framed as a problem of redundancy, multiple constructs that differ in name but not in substance. While this framing captures an important aspect of CP, it is incomplete. In this Perspective, I argue that prevailing approaches overemphasize the jangle side of the jingle-jangle fallacy while neglecting the equally consequential problem of semantic divergence under shared labels. I further propose that CP reflects deeper structural dynamics, including misalignment between academic and practitioner audiences and a lack of coordination in how constructs are defined, used, and evaluated. These dynamics contribute to what can be understood as taxonomic incommensurability, where constructs cannot be meaningfully integrated despite apparent similarity. Finally, I outline how recent advances in semantic analysis offer a promising, underutilized tool for addressing CP at the level of meaning rather than measurement alone. Addressing CP, therefore, requires not only improved psychometric practices but a broader shift toward conceptual clarification, cross-domain coordination, and stronger integration between research and application.

Indexed as

academic-practice gapconstruct proliferationjingle-jangle fallacysemantic toolstaxonomic incommensurability

Identifiers

PMID42459625
PMCPMC13368538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.