Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:01:34.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Computer Revolution in Psychometrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Bert F. Green Jr.
Bert F. Green Jr.*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We have said that psychometric methods involving algorithms are completely objective—at least they are if the algorithm is in the form of a program for a digital computer. These objective procedures need Monte Carlo and other computer runs to determine their properties, but so do many equation-oriented techniques. The objective algorithms are flexible but not flaccid. They offer a way of dealing with complexities that formerly seemed beyond our grasp. As the computer revolution continues in psychometrics, we can expect objective algorithmic methods to become the rule rather than the exception.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 437 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 Psychometric Society

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.)

Footnotes

*

Presidential address delivered at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, New York, New York, September 3, 1966.

†

This paper was prepared while the author was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The investigation was supported by a Public Health Service fellowship, 1 F3, MH-28, 495-01 (PS), from the National Institute of Mental Health.

References

Anderson, H. E. Jr. and Fruchter, B. Some multiple correlation and predictor selection methods. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. Some deeper significance of the computer for the practicing psychologist. Personnel and Guid. J., 1965, 43, 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. and Muerle, J. L. The “Maxplane” program for factor rotation to oblique simple structure. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1960, 20, 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnes, A. and Cooper, W. W. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. Vol. I, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. S. Solution to the personnel classification problem with the method of optimal regions. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eber, H. W. Toward oblique simple structure: Maxplane. Multivariate Behav. Res., 1966, 1, 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, B. F. Jr. Computer models for cognitive processes. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 1944, 9, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest Euclidean space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Harman, H. H. Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Jones, L. V. Beyond Babbage. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1960, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. and Caffrey, J. Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. The estimation of factor loadings by the method of maximum likelihood. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., 1940, A40, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingoes, J. C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes smallest space analysis—I. Behavioral Science, 1965, 10, 183–184.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J., Gleser, C., and DuBois, P. H. Maximizing the discriminating power of a multiple-score test. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuitty, L. L. Rank order typal analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1963, 23, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika, 1962, 27 I125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. and Carroll, J. D. Parametric representation of nonlinear data structures. To appear in Krishnaiah, P. R. (Ed.) Proc. International Symposium on Multivariate Analysis. New York: Academic Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Spang, H. A. III A review of minimization techniques for nonlinear functions. SIAM Rev., 1962, 4, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, E. A. The scalogram board technique for scale analysis. In Stouffer, S. A. et al. (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. An analytic method for simple structure. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and Methods of Scaling, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Multidimensional scaling of similarity. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tryon, R. C. Cumulative communality cluster analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1958, 18, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. The objective definition of simple structure in linear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, H. Maximizing test validity by item selection. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar