Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:55:53.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Coombs' Theory of Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

John W. Thompson
John W. Thompson*
Affiliation:
University of London Institute of Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A working theory can involve a compromise between pragmatic application and pure theory. This is illustrated by the development of Coombs's theory of data. The original version of the theory purported to guide investigators in the use of scaling techniques, but subsequent revisions including a logico-mathematical statement of the theory do not show whether the practical recommendations made earlier still apply. These practical recommendations, some of which Coombs has discarded to obtain a comprehensive theory, are important in spite of shortcomings as they reveal differences between attitude and mental test data. The different forms of Coombs's theory point to the existence of a general problem, how to find a compromise between practice and pure theory.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 376 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Brim, O. G. Jr., “Attitude content-intensity and probability expectations,” Amer. Soc. Rev. 1955, 20, 68–76.Google Scholar
[2] Coombs, C. H., “A theory of psychological scaling,” Engineering Research Institute Bulletin No. 34. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951.Google Scholar
[3] Coombs, C. H., “Theory and methods of social measurement,” In Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, Festinger, Leon and Katz, Daniel (eds.), pp. 471–535. New York: Dryden Press, 1953.Google Scholar
[4] Coombs, C. H., in Decision Processes by Thrall, R. M., Coombs, C. H. and Davis, R. L., New York: Wiley, 1954.Google Scholar
[5] Coombs, C. H., “The scale grid: some interrelations of data models,” Psychometrika 1956, 21, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Coombs, C. H., “A theory of data,” Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Coombs, C. H., A theory of Data, New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
[8] Eysenck, H. J. The Psychology of Politics., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954.Google Scholar
[9] Green, B. F., “Attitude measurement,” in Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 1, Theory and Method, Gardner Lindzey (ed.) Cambridge, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1954, pp. 335–367.Google Scholar
[10] Guttman, L. in Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 4, Measurement and Prediction, S. A. Stouffer et al. Princeton University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
[11] Henry, A. F. and Borgatta, E. F., “A consideration of some problems of content identification in scaling,” Public Opinion Quarterly 1956, 20, 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Lazarsfeld, P. F., “Recent developments in latent structure analysis,” In Sociometry and the Science of Man, Moreno, J. L. (ed.), New York: Beacon House, 1956, pp. 391–403.Google Scholar
[13] Loevinger, Jane, “The technic of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of ‘scale analysis’ and factor analysis,” Psychol. Bull., 1948, 45, 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Lord, F. M., “Scaling,” Rev. Educ. Res., (chapter 2), 1954, 24, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Lord, F. M., “Some relations between Guttman's principal components and other psychometric theory,” Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 291–296.Google Scholar
[16] Peak, Helen., “Problems of objective observation,” Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, pp. 243–299.Google Scholar
[17] Riley, J., Riley, M., Cohn, R. and Toby, J., “Comment on Strodtbeck's review of ‘Scale Analysis.‘ Sociometry and the Science of Man,” pp. 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Schuessler, K. F., “Item selection in scale analysis,” Amer. Soc. Rev., 1952, 17, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Strodtbeck, F. L., “Special review of ‘Sociological Studies in Scale Analysis’,” Sociometry and the Science of Man, pp. 459–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Thompson, J. W., “The bi-polar and unidirectional measurement of intelligence,” Brit. J. Psychol., 1961, 52, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Thompson, J. W., “Bi-polar and unidirectional scales,” Brit. J. Psychol., 1963, 54, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Thurstone, L. L., “Attitudes can be measured,” Amer. J. Soc., 1928, 33, 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar