In 1998, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz proposed that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit constructs. I examine discriminant validity in several multimethod studies and find little or no evidence of discriminant validity. I also show that validity of the IAT as a measure of attitudes varies across constructs. Validity of the self-esteem IAT is low, but estimates vary across studies. About 20% of the variance in the race IAT reflects racial preferences. The highest validity is obtained for measuring political orientation with the IAT (64%). Most of this valid variance stems from a distinction between individuals with opposing attitudes, whereas reaction times contribute less than 10% of variance in the prediction of explicit attitude measures. In all domains, explicit measures are more valid than the IAT, but the IAT can be used as a measure of sensitive attitudes to reduce measurement error by using a multimethod measurement model.

1998 年，Greenwald、McGhee 和 Schwartz 提出内隐联想测试（IAT）测量内隐社会认知的个体差异。这种说法需要结构有效性的证据。我审查了证据并表明该声明的证据不足。最重要的是，我表明很少有研究能够测试 IAT 的区分效度作为内隐结构的衡量标准。我在几项多方法研究中检查了判别效度，发现很少或没有判别效度的证据。我还表明，IAT 作为态度衡量标准的有效性因构念而异。自尊 IAT 的有效性较低，但估计因研究而异。种族 IAT 中大约 20% 的差异反映了种族偏好。使用 IAT 测量政治取向的有效性最高 (64%)。大多数这种有效方差源于具有相反态度的个体之间的区别，而反应时间在显性态度测量的预测中贡献的方差不到 10%。在所有领域，显式测量比 IAT 更有效，但 IAT 可以用作敏感态度的测量，通过使用多方法测量模型来减少测量误差。