In a prior publication, I used structural equation modeling of multimethod data to examine the construct validity of Implicit Association Tests. The results showed no evidence that IATs measure implicit constructs (e.g., implicit self-esteem, implicit racial bias). This critique of IATs elicited several responses by implicit social-cognition researchers, who tried to defend the validity and usefulness of IATs. I carefully examine these arguments and show that they lack validity. IAT proponents consistently ignore or misrepresent facts that challenge the validity of IATs as measures of individual differences in implicit cognitions. One response suggests that IATs can be useful even if they merely measure the same constructs as self-report measures, but I find no support for the claim that IATs have practically significant incremental predictive validity. In conclusions, IATs are widely used without psychometric evidence of construct or predictive validity.

在先前的出版物中，我使用多方法数据的结构方程模型来检查隐式关联测试的构造有效性。结果表明，没有证据表明IATs测量了内隐的构造（例如内隐的自尊，内隐的种族偏见）。对IAT的这种批判引起了内隐的社会认知研究者的若干回应，他们试图捍卫IAT的有效性和实用性。我仔细检查了这些论点，并证明它们缺乏有效性。IAT的支持者始终忽略或歪曲事实，这些事实挑战了IAT作为隐性认知中个体差异的度量标准。一项回应表明，即使只是与自我报告测度所衡量的结构相同，IAT也可能是有用的，但我认为IAT具有显着的增量预测效度这一说法无可厚非。总而言之，IAT被广泛使用，而没有构造或预测有效性的心理计量学证据。