Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-8qdnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T21:14:11.003Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false

Measurement without Copper Instruments and Experiment without Complete Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Willem J. Heiser*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Willem J. Heiser, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: Heiser@fsw.leideuniv.nl.

Extract

One basic reason that measurement in psychology requires statistics is that psychologists do not use copper instruments anymore, as they used to do in the nineteenth century. Instead, they determine test or total scores on the basis of miniature experiments with discrete outcomes, and use a variety of standard statististical techniques for reaching conclusions on the basis of observed data. Borsboom (2006) wants us to believe that psychologists are seriously misled in their hope that they can make progress this way, and recommends an invasion of psychometricians carrying IRT missiles and SEM guns into psychology.My prediction is that such an invasion would simply be ignored. That is not to say that whenever psychometric modeling really makes a difference, no attempts should be made to reach the mainstream of psychology. Indeed, many psychometric contributions that are obsolete according to Borsboom, like Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis, in fact entered into the mainstream of psychology only because they tend to provide sensible answers to real problems, which cannot be easily surpassed.

Type
Original Paper
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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

Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J.B. (1995). Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould’s The mismeasure of man (1981). Intelligence, 21, 121134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., Krüger, L. (1989). The empire of chance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullikson, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests, Dordrecht: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W.J. (2003). Trust in relations. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 264269.Google Scholar
Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Warrens, M.J., De Gruijter, D.N.M., Heiser, W.J. (2006). A systematic comparison between classical optimal scaling and the two-parameter IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 115.Google Scholar