Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:28:02.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Theory of Appropriate Statistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ernest W. Adams ,
Robert F. Fagot  and
Richard E. Robinson
Ernest W. Adams
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Robert F. Fagot
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Richard E. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A formal theory of appropriateness for statistical operations is presented which incorporates features of Stevens’ theory of appropriate statistics and Suppes’ theory of empirical meaningfulness. It is proposed that a statistic be regarded as appropriate relative to statements made about it in case the truths of these statements are invariant under permissible transformations of the measurement scale. It is argued that the use of inappropriate statistics leads to the formulation of statements which are either semantically meaningless or empirically nonsignificant.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 99 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 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

*

This research was supported in part by each of the following grants: National Science Foundation Grant GS-333 to the University of Oregon; National Science Foundation Grant to the Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley; and National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-08055-01 (under the direction of Ernest W. Adams), also to the Institute of Human Learning. Work on this project was carried out in part during Robert F. Fagot’s tenure as Public Health Service Special Fellow (No. MSP-15800) at the University of California, Berkeley, 1962-63; and during Richard E. Robinson’s tenure as National Science Foundation Science Faculty Fellow at Stanford University, 1962–63.

References

Adams, E. W., Fagot, R. F., and Robinson, R. E. Invariance, meaningfulness, and appropriate statistics. Tech. Rep. No. 1, Measurement Theory Reports, Univ. of Oregon, August 1, 1964.Google Scholar
Anderson, N. H. Scales and statistics: Parametric and nonparametric. Psychol. Bull., 1961, 58, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behan, F. L. and Behan, R. A. Football numbers (continued). Amer. Psychologist, 1954, 9, 262–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, C. J. Additive scales and statistics. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 73–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, N. R. An account of the principles of measurement and calculation, London: Longmans, Green, 1928.Google Scholar
Campbell, N. R. Measurement and its importance for philosophy. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 1938, 17, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, N. R. Physics: the elements. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1920. Republished as Foundations of Science, New York: Dover, 1957.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. Mental testing and the logic of measurement. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1951, 11, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. On the statistical treatment of football numbers. Amer. Psychologist, 1953, 8, 750–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychol. Rev., 1959, 66, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McConnell, A. J. Applications of the absolute differential calculus, London: Blackie and Son, 1931.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. E. A set-theoretical approach to empirical meaningfulness of measurement statements. Tech. Rep. No. 55, Institute for mathematical studies in the social sciences, Stanford Univ., June 10, 1963.Google Scholar
Senders, V. L. A comment on Burke’s additive scales and statistics. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 423–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 1946, 103, 667–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In Stevens, S. S. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental psychology, New York: Wiley, 1951.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. Measurement, psychophysics, and utility. In Churchman, C. W. and Ratoosh, P. (Eds.), Measurement: definitions and theories, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. A set of independent axioms for extensive quantities. Portugaliae mathematica, 1951, 10, 163–172.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. Measurement, empirical meaningfulness, and three-valued logic. In Churchman, C. W., Ratoosh, P. (Eds.), Measurement: definitions and theories, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. L. Basic measurement theory. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, Vol. 1, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. Some methodological investigations on the definability of concepts. Logic, semantics, metamathematics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1956, 296–319.Google Scholar