Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-hj587 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:57:52.607Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false

Frederic M. Lord and Melvin R. Novick. (With Contributions By Allen Birnbaum). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Pp. xvii + 568. $14.95.

Review products

Frederic M. Lord and Melvin R. Novick. (With Contributions By Allen Birnbaum). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Pp. xvii + 568. $14.95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Louis Guttman*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 The 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.)

References

Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 1945, 10, 255282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttman, L. Relation of scalogram analysis to other techniques. In Stouffer, S. A. et al. (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1950, 206210.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. Reliability formulas that do not assume experimental independence. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 225239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18, 395404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. Reliability formulas for noncompleted or speeded tests. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 113124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmogorov, A. Foundations of the theory of probability, 1950, New York: Chelsea Publishing Co..Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar