{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02912621359223301, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005547850208044383, 'mean_word_length': 6.009708737864078, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In Defense of the Construct Validity Approach

Maraun's (1998) `mischaracterization of measurement' critique of construct validity theory is examined in terms of the distinctions between: (a) semantic denotation and a variable's being exemplified by a value; (b) semantic denotation and theoretical implication; (c) the meaning of a psychological concept and the theoretical properties of the mental structure or phenomenon denoted by the concept; and (d) using a psychological concept in everyday communication and investigating the phenomenon or structure denoted by the concept. The propriety of criticizing psychological measurements on the basis of Wittgenstein's grammar of psychological concepts is also discussed.