Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-f9j5r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T21:08:20.392Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When a Psychometric Advance Falls in the Forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Lee Anna Clark
Lee Anna Clark*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to la-clark@uiowa.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Borsboom (2006) attacks psychologists for failing to incorporate psychometric advances in their work, discusses factors that contribute to this regrettable situation, and offers suggestions for ameliorating it. This commentary applauds Borsboom for calling the field to task on this issue and notes additional problems in the field regarding measurement that he could add to his critique. It also chastises Borsboom for occasionally being unnecessarily perjorative in his critique, noting that negative rhetoric is unlikely to make converts of offenders. Finally, it exhorts psychometricians to make their work more accessible and points to Borsboom, Mellenbergh, and Van Heerden (2003) as an excellent example of how this can be done.

Keywords

psychometricspsychological measurementconstruct validitycritique
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 447 - 450
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.)

Footnotes

I wish to thank Frank Schmidt for his help in preparing this paper.

References

Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment (BTSPA) (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. (2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millsap, R.E. (1997). Invariance in measurement and prediction: Their relationship in the single-factor case. Psychological Methods, 2, 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar