Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T15:59:15.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Measurement a Hundred and Twenty-Five Years Later

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. P. Guilford
J. P. Guilford*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When writing this paper as well as during our commemorative luncheon, I could not help going back in memory to two experiences. One of these occurred during the fall semester of 1935 while I was visiting professor at Northwestern University and took advantage of the opportunity and had the rare privilege of attending Thurstone’s seminar. The atmosphere at the University of Chicago at that time clearly reflected the birth and early infancy of both the Psychometric Society and its Journal Psychometrika.

The other experience comes back in the form of an image of our first annual dinner in the Inn at Dartmouth College in September 1936. The banquet had an unexpectedly large and enthusiastic attendance. Thurstone provided one of his memorable addresses, which was later published in Science, entitled “Psychology as a quantitative rational science” [35]. The address is well worth rereading.

I might spend the time alloted to me in declaiming the merits of quantitative psychology and what it has done for the progress of psychology in general. But in this group I shall take our substantial contribution for granted and try instead to help measurement psychologists look at themselves and their own progress and some of their own problems.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 109 - 127
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.)

References

Attneave, F. Applications of information theory to psychology: a summary of basic concepts, methods, and results, New York: Holt, 1959.Google Scholar
Baker, K. W. and Dudek, F. J. Weight scales from ratio judgements and comparisons of existing weight scales. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 50, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Björkman, M. Variability data and direct quantitative judgment for scaling subjective magnitudes, Stockholm: Univ. Stockholm, 1960.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. and Gleser, G. C. Psychological tests and personnel decisions, New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Dudek, F. J. and Baker, K. E. The constant-sum method applied to scaling subjective dimensions. Amer. J. Psychol., 1956, 69, 616–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W. The theory of decision making. Psychol. Bull., 1954, 51, 380–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, G. Weber's law and related functions. J. Psychol., 1959, 47, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, W. R. Advantages of the discriminability criterion for a loudness scale. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1958, 30, 1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. When not to factor analyze. Psychol. Bull., 1952, 49, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods (2d ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychological measurement. In Seward, G. S., Seward, J. P. (Eds.), Current psychological issues. New York: Holt, 1958, 281–302.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. Amer. Psychologist, 1959, 14, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Factorial angles to psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1961, in press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J. P. and Dingman, H. F. A validation study of ratio-judgment methods. Amer. J. Psychol., 1954, 67, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helson, H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1947, 60, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helson, H. Adaptation level theory. In Koch, S. (Eds.), Psychology: a study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 565–621.Google Scholar
Hull, C. L., Felsinger, J. M., Gladstone, A. I., and Yamaguchi, H. G. A proposed quantification of habit strength. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 54, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, L. G. Measures of strength of conditioned eyelid responses. J. gen. Psychol., 1943, 29, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendler, H. H. Learning. In Annual review of psychology. Vol. 10. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, 1959. Pp. 43–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 56, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Edwards, W. A derivation of subjective scales from just noticeable differences. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 222–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. Games and decisions, New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Mann, M. J. Creativity and productivity in evaluation and measurement. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1959, 19, 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, W. The slope of the loudness function: a puzzle. In Gulliksen, H., Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: theory and application, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Michels, W. C. and Helson, H. A reformulation of the Fechner law in terms of adaptation-level applied to rating-scale data. Amer. J. Psychol., 1949, 62, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michels, W. C. and Helson, H. A reconcilation of the veg scale with Fechner's law. Amer. J. Psychol., 1954, 67, 677–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 222–237.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. Adaptation-level vs. the relativity of judgment. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 633–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. The psychophysics of sensory function. Amer. Scientist, 1960, 48, 226–263.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales, and confusion scales. In Gulliksen, H., Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: theory and applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Psychophysical analysis. Amer. J. Psychol., 1927, 38, 368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Psychology as a quantitative rational science. Science, 1937, 85, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Quantitative judgment scales. In Gulliksen, H., Messick, S. (Eds.), Psychological scaling: theory and applications, New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Warren, R. M. A basis for judgments of sensory intensity. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 675–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, R. M. and Warren, R. P. Effect of the relative volume of standard and comparison-object on half-heaviness judgments. Amer. J. Psychol., 1956, 69, 640–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodrow, H. The problem of general quantitative laws in psychology. Psychol. Bull., 1942, 39, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar