Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:04:36.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of Learning and Mental Abilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Harold Gulliksen
Harold Gulliksen*
Affiliation:
Princeton University and Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

About 27 years ago, a small group of students met with Professor Thurstone in Chicago to discuss methods of encouraging quantitative work in psychology. The initial group that was concerned about the slow rate of development of quantitative work in psychology included Jack Dunlap, Al Kurtz, Marion Richardson, John Stalnaker, G. Frederic Kuder, and Paul Horst. They had discussed the problem, had been helped a bit by Donald Paterson, and had decided that possibly if a magazine were set up to publish quantitative psychological material this would facilitate the development of the field. Persons who did good quantitative work, either theoretical or experimental, would thus have a forum where it would be accepted because it was high quality quantitative work, rather than being rejected because it was quantitative and hence “not of too great interest” to the readers.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 93 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 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.)

Footnotes

*

Prepared as a technical report in connection with research partially supported by Office of Naval Research contract Nonr 1858-(15) and National Science Foundation Grant G-3407 to Princeton University, and by the Educational Testing Service. Reproduction of any part of this material is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government.

References

Allison, R. B. Jr. Learning parameters and human abilities. Princeton Univ., Psychol. Dept., 1960. (multilith)Google Scholar
Anastasi, A. Psychological testing, New York: Macmillan, 1954.Google Scholar
Audley, R. The inclusion of response times within a stochastic description of the learning behavior of individual subjects. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. Probability and statistics in item analysis and classification problems: on the estimation of mental ability, Pensacola, Florida: Sch. of Aviation Medicine USAF, 1957.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. The beginning and growth of measurement in psychology. Paper presented at the N. R. C. and S. S. R. C. conference on “The history of quantification in the sciences,” Nov., 1959.Google Scholar
Brogden, H. E. Least squares estimates and optimal classification. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. Stochastic models for learning, New York: Wiley, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. Test “reliability”: its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 1947, 12, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing, New York: Harper, 1949.Google Scholar
Cureton, E. E. The definition and estimation of test reliability. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1958, 18, 715–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckart, C. and Young, G. The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, J. W. The description of aptitude and achievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometric Monogr. No. 5, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1951.Google Scholar
French, J. W. The description of personality measurements in terms of rotated factors, Princeton: Educ. Testing Serv., 1953.Google Scholar
Green, B. F. Jr. IPL-V: The Newell-Shaw-Simon programming language. Behav. Sci., 1960, 5, 94–98.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Rational equation of the learning curve based on Thorndike's law of effect. J. gen. Psychol., 1934, 11, 395–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. A generalization of Thurstone's learning function. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Mathematical solutions for psychological problems. Amer. Scientist, 1959, 47, 178–201.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 1945, 10, 255–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagensick, P. W. Logic by machine: programming the LGP-30 to solve problems in symbolic logic. Behav. Sci., 1960, 5, 87–94.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E. R. Theories of learning (2nd ed.), New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956.Google Scholar
Hohn, F. E. Elementary matrix algebra, New York: Macmillan, 1958.Google Scholar
Horst, P. and MacEwan, C. Optimal test length for multiple prediction: the general case. Psychometrika, 1957, 22, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior, New York: Appleton Century, 1943.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. and Ferguson, G. Studies on the reliability of tests. Toronto: Dept. Educ. Res. Bull. No. 12, 1941.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. Latent structure analysis. In Koch, S. (Eds.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. III, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. F. Educational measurement, Menasha, Wis.: Banta, 1951.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. A theory of test scores, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. Tests of the same length do have the same standard error of measurement. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1959, 19, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. An approach to mental test theory. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. Clinical and statistical prediction, Minneapolis: Univ. Minnesota Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Mollenkopf, W. G. Variation of the standard error of measurement. Psychometrika, 1949, 14, 189–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, England. Mechanisation of thought processes, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1959.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. The simulation of human thought, Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corp., 1959.Google Scholar
Rashevsky, N. Mathematical biophysics (Rev. ed.), Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Remmers, H. H. and Gage, N. L. Educational measurement and evaluation, New York: Harper, 1955.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, F. The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 386–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, C. E. and McCarthy, J. Automata studies, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. Stimulus and response generalization: tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, R. W. Physiological plasticity and brain circuit theory. In Harlow, H. F., Woolsey, C. N. (Eds.), Biological and biochemical bases of behavior. Madison, Wis.: Univ. Wisconsin Press, 1958, 401–424.Google Scholar
Stake, R. Learning parameters, aptitudes and achievements. Princeton Univ., Psychol. Dept., 1958. (multilith).Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. The fundamentals of learning, New York: Columbia Univ. Bur. Publ., 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen, E. Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education, New York: Wiley, 1955.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The learning function. J. gen. Psychol., 1930, 3, 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The reliability and validity of tests, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards Brothers, 1931.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The error function in maze learning. J. gen. Psychol., 1933, 9, 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Dept. of the Army, Personnel Res. Br., AGO, Rep. 984, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Determination of parameters of a functional relation by factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. An interbattery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Determination of generalized learning curves by factor analysis. Princeton Univ., Psychol. Dept., 1960. (multilith).Google Scholar
Uhr, L. Intelligence in computers: the psychology of perception in people and in machines. Behav. Sci., 1960, 5, 177–182.Google Scholar
Weitzman, R. A. A comparison of the performance of rats and fish on a probabilistic, discriminative learning problem, Princeton: Educ. Testing Serv. Rep., 1959.Google Scholar
Western Joint Computer Conference. Proceedings of the 1955 Western Joint Computer Conference, New York: Amer. Inst. of Elect. Engineers, 1955.Google Scholar