Hostname: page-component-84c44f86f4-lgfmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-15T01:23:28.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can We Bring about a Velvet Revolution in Psychological Measurement? a Rejoinder to Commentaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Denny Borsboom
Denny Borsboom*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Denny Borsboom, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam. E-mail: d.borsboom@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

First, I thank Sijtsma, Clark, Kane, and Heiser for taking the time and effort to provide a commentary on my paper, and the Editor for allowing me to respond to them. In general, the commentators agree with the thesis that psychometrics and psychology are, to an extent that must be deemed problematic, disconnected. They further agree with the upshot of this diagnosis: Psychometricians need to work harder to make a difference in psychology, and psychologists need to develop a greater awareness of important psychometric developments. However, the commentators also raise several points of disagreement and criticism.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 463 - 467
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P.M., Christic, C. (2006). Decoding the implicit association test: Implication for criterion prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychology Review, 111, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, L.E. (2006). When a psychometric advance falls in the forest. Psychometrika, 71, 447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J., Junker, B.W. (1997). Tail-measurability in monotone latent variable models. Psychometrika, 62, 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W. J. (2006). Measurement without copper instruments and experiment without complete control. Psychometrika, 71, 457–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, P.W., Hoskens, M. (2003). Classical test theory as a first-order item response theory: Application to true-score prediction from a possibly nonparallel test. Psychometrika, 68, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. (2006). In praise of pluralism. A comment on Brosboom. Psychometrika, 71, 441–445.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
Raijmakers, M.E.J., Dolan, C.V., Molenaar, P.C.M. (2001). Finite mixture models for simple discrimination learning. Memory & Cognition, 29, 659–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sijtsma, K. (2006). Psychometrics in psychological research: Role model or partner in science?. Psychometrika, 71, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visser, I., Raijmakers, M.E.J., & Molenaar, P.C.M. (in press). Characterizing sequence knowledge using online measures and hidden Markov models. Memory & Cognition.Google Scholar
Wicherts, J.M., Dolan, C.V., Hessen, D.J. (2005). Stereotype threat and group differences in test performance: A question of measurement invariance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 696–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed