Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:33:28.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retrospective Anticipation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Harry H. Harman
Harry H. Harman*
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The objectives of the Psychometric Society are coincident with those of its journal, namely, “the development of psychology as a quantitative rational science.” This general theme has frequently been referred to by the past presidents in their annual addresses. They did so by employing several different approaches: some by proposing directions of future research of the Society; some by making critical-instructive appraisals of past research; some by presenting reports of their own ongoing research; and some by viewing the present scene from an historical or philosophical perspective. Furthermore, the tone of these addresses has run the gamut from the frivolous to the profoundly scholarly.

A brief analysis of the previous addresses disclosed some interesting items. First, there have been eight instances, in our 34 year history, when the address was skipped entirely, beginning with Thurstone’s [1937] published in Science rather than in Psychometrika. Of the addresses that subsequently appeared in Psychometrika, the average was 13 pages (including references) with a range from 5 to 26 pages. (Hopefully, the longer ones were not read in their entirety.) More than half the papers were expository in nature. Although 12 were reports on serious research problems, only four contained heavy mathematical developments. Five addresses could be characterized as facetious or humorous, but nonetheless carried a moral for the Society. In general, suggestions were made in 13 instances for future research or directions of emphasis for the Society, and 9 addressed themselves explicitly to its aims. There was also a sprinkling of criticism, philosophy, and history relating to the Society or to specific psychometric methods. Of course, the foregoing classifications were not mutually exclusive, and merely constitute one man’s opinions.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1969 , pp. 407 - 420
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.)

Footnotes

*

Presidential address delivered at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Washington, D. C., September 3, 1969.

References

Atkinson, R. C. A Markov model for discrimination learning. Prychometrika, 1958, 23, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D. Remarks on the test of significance for the method of paired comparisons. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 323–334.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H., & Kao, R. C. On a connection between factor analysis and multidimensional unfolding. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 219–231.Google Scholar
Cox, Gertrude M. The multiple factor theory in terms of common elements. Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 59–68.Google Scholar
Dunlap, J. W. Psychometrics—a special case of the Brahman theory. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, P. S. The evaluation of multiple and partial correlation coefficients from the factorial matrix. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. Theory of learning with constant, variable, or contingent probabilities of reinforcement. Psychometrika, 1957, 22, 113–132.Google Scholar
Green, B. F. Jr. Computer models of cognitive processes. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. & Tukey, J. W. Reliability for the law of comparative judgment. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanania, M. I. A generalization of the Bush-Mosteller model with some significance tests. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harary, F. A graph theoretic approach to similarity relations. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Henry F. The varimax criterion for analytical rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 33, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, Helena Chmura. Estimation in the 3-state Markov learning model. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 131–141.Google Scholar
Lehman, H. C. The psychologist's most creative years. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, F. M. An approach to mental test theory. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D., Macy, J. Jr., & Tagiuri, R. A statistical model for relational analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. Chronological age, professional age, and eminence in psychology. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 371–374.Google ScholarPubMed
McDonald, Roderick P. A unified treatment of the weighting problem. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 351–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, William A method for studying differences between groups. Psychometrika, 1965, 30, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, C. Rodhakrishna Estimation and tests of significance in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1955, 30, 93–111.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. Theoretical models of choice and strategy behavior: Stable state behavior in the two-choice uncertain outcome situation. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. A comparison of game theory and learning theory. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Psychology as a quantitative rational science. Science, 1937, 85, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L. L. A method of factoring without communalities. 1954Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, N. J.: Educ. Test. Serv.. 1955, 59–62.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. An inter-battery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 33, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wispe, L. G. & Ritter, J. H. Where America's recognized psychologists received their Doctorates. American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 634–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar