Psychometrics

Psychometrics is a field of study within psychology concerned with the theory and technique of
measurement. Psychometrics generally refers to specialized fields within psychology and education devoted
to testing, measurement, assessment, and related activities.[1] Psychometrics is concerned with the objective
measurement of latent constructs that cannot be directly observed. Examples of latent constructs include
intelligence, introversion, mental disorders, and educational achievement.[2] The levels of individuals on
nonobservable latent variables are inferred through mathematical modeling based on what is observed from
individuals' responses to items on tests and scales.[2]

Practitioners are described as psychometricians, although not all who engage in psychometric research go
by this title. Psychometricians usually possess specific qualifications such as degrees or certifications, and
most are psychologists with advanced graduate training in psychometrics and measurement theory. In
addition to traditional, academic institutions, practitioners also work for organizations such as the
Educational Testing Service and Psychological Corporation. Some psychometric researchers focus on the
construction and validation of assessment instruments including surveys, scales, and open- or close-ended
questionnaires. Others focus on research relating to measurement theory (e.g., item response theory;
intraclass correlation) or specialize as learning and development professionals.

Historical foundation
Psychological testing has come from two streams of thought: the first, from Darwin, Galton, and Cattell on
the measurement of individual differences, and the second, from Herbart, Weber, Fechner, and Wundt and
their psychophysical measurements of a similar construct. The second set of individuals and their research
is what has led to the development of experimental psychology and standardized testing.[3]

Victorian stream

Charles Darwin was the inspiration behind Sir Francis Galton, a scientist who advanced the development
of psychometrics. In 1859, Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. Darwin described the role
of natural selection in the emergence, over time, of different populations of species of plants and animals.
The book showed how individual members of a species differ among themselves and how they possess
characteristics that are more or less adaptive to their environment. Those with more adaptive characteristics
are more likely to survive to procreate and give rise to another generation. Those with less adaptive
characteristics are less likely. These ideas stimulated Galton's interest in the study of human beings and how
they differ one from another and, more importantly, how to measure those differences.

Galton wrote a book entitled Hereditary Genius. The book described different characteristics that people
possess and how those characteristics make some more "fit" than others. Today these differences, such as
sensory and motor functioning (reaction time, visual acuity, and physical strength), are important domains
of scientific psychology. Much of the early theoretical and applied for work in psychometrics was
undertaken in an attempt to measure intelligence. Galton often referred to as "the father of psychometrics,"
devised and included mental tests among his anthropometric measures. James McKeen Cattell, a pioneer in
the field of psychometrics, went on to extend Galton's work. Cattell coined the term mental test, and is
responsible for research and knowledge that ultimately led to the development of modern tests.[4]

German stream

The origin of psychometrics also has connections to the related field of psychophysics. Around the same
time that Darwin, Galton, and Cattell were making their discoveries, Herbart was also interested in
"unlocking the mysteries of human consciousness" through the scientific method.[4] Herbart was
responsible for creating mathematical models of the mind, which were influential in educational practices
for years to come.

E.H. Weber built upon Herbart's work and tried to prove the existence of a psychological threshold, saying
that a minimum stimulus was necessary to activate a sensory system. After Weber, G.T. Fechner expanded
upon the knowledge he gleaned from Herbart and Weber, to devise the law that the strength of a sensation
grows as the logarithm of the stimulus intensity. A follower of Weber and Fechner, Wilhelm Wundt is
credited with founding the science of psychology. It is Wundt's influence that paved the way for others to
develop psychological testing.[4]

20th century

In 1936, the psychometrician L. L. Thurstone, founder and first president of the Psychometric Society,
developed and applied a theoretical approach to measurement referred to as the law of comparative
judgment, an approach that has close connections to the psychophysical theory of Ernst Heinrich Weber
and Gustav Fechner. In addition, Spearman and Thurstone both made important contributions to the theory
and application of factor analysis, a statistical method developed and used extensively in psychometrics.[5]
In the late 1950s, Leopold Szondi made a historical and epistemological assessment of the impact of
statistical thinking on psychology during previous few decades: "in the last decades, the specifically
psychological thinking has been almost completely suppressed and removed, and replaced by a statistical
thinking. Precisely here we see the cancer of testology and testomania of today."[6]

More recently, psychometric theory has been applied in the measurement of personality, attitudes, and
beliefs, and academic achievement. These latent constructs cannot truly be measured, and much of the
research and science in this discipline has been developed in an attempt to measure these constructs as close
to the true score as possible.

Figures who made significant contributions to psychometrics include Karl Pearson, Henry F. Kaiser, Carl
Brigham, L. L. Thurstone, E. L. Thorndike, Georg Rasch, Eugene Galanter, Johnson O'Connor, Frederic
M. Lord, Ledyard R Tucker, Louis Guttman, and Jane Loevinger.

Definition of measurement in the social sciences

The definition of measurement in the social sciences has a long history. A current widespread definition,
proposed by Stanley Smith Stevens, is that measurement is "the assignment of numerals to objects or events
according to some rule." This definition was introduced in a 1946 Science article in which Stevens
proposed four levels of measurement.[7] Although widely adopted, this definition differs in important
respects from the more classical definition of measurement adopted in the physical sciences, namely that
scientific measurement entails "the estimation or discovery of the ratio of some magnitude of a quantitative
attribute to a unit of the same attribute" (p. 358)[8]
Indeed, Stevens's definition of measurement was put forward in response to the British Ferguson
Committee, whose chair, A. Ferguson, was a physicist. The committee was appointed in 1932 by the
British Association for the Advancement of Science to investigate the possibility of quantitatively estimating
sensory events. Although its chair and other members were physicists, the committee also included several
psychologists. The committee's report highlighted the importance of the definition of measurement. While
Stevens's response was to propose a new definition, which has had considerable influence in the field, this
was by no means the only response to the report. Another, notably different, response was to accept the
classical definition, as reflected in the following statement:

Measurement in psychology and physics are in no sense different. Physicists can

measure when they can find the operations by which they may meet the necessary criteria;
psychologists have to do the same. They need not worry about the mysterious differences
between the meaning of measurement in the two sciences (Reese, 1943, p. 49).[9]

These divergent responses are reflected in alternative approaches to measurement. For example, methods
based on covariance matrices are typically employed on the premise that numbers, such as raw scores
derived from assessments, are measurements. Such approaches implicitly entail Stevens's definition of
measurement, which requires only that numbers are assigned according to some rule. The main research
task, then, is generally considered to be the discovery of associations between scores, and of factors posited
to underlie such associations.[10]

On the other hand, when measurement models such as the Rasch model are employed, numbers are not
assigned based on a rule. Instead, in keeping with Reese's statement above, specific criteria for
measurement are stated, and the goal is to construct procedures or operations that provide data that meet the
relevant criteria. Measurements are estimated based on the models, and tests are conducted to ascertain
whether the relevant criteria have been met.

Instruments and procedures

The first psychometric instruments were designed to measure intelligence.[11] One early approach to
measuring intelligence was the test developed in France by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. That test
was known as the Test Binet-Simon.The French test was adapted for use in the U. S. by Lewis Terman of
Stanford University, and named the Stanford-Binet IQ test.

Another major focus in psychometrics has been on personality testing. There has been a range of theoretical
approaches to conceptualizing and measuring personality, though there is no widely agreed upon theory.
Some of the better-known instruments include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Five-
Factor Model (or "Big 5") and tools such as Personality and Preference Inventory and the Myers–Briggs
Type Indicator. Attitudes have also been studied extensively using psychometric approaches.[12] An
alternative method involves the application of unfolding measurement models, the most general being the
Hyperbolic Cosine Model (Andrich & Luo, 1993).[13]

Theoretical approaches
Psychometricians have developed a number of different measurement theories. These include classical test
theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT).[14][15] An approach that seems mathematically to be similar
to IRT but also quite distinctive, in terms of its origins and features, is represented by the Rasch model for
measurement. The development of the Rasch model, and the broader class of models to which it belongs,
was explicitly founded on requirements of measurement in the physical sciences.[16]
Psychometricians have also developed methods for working with large matrices of correlations and
covariances. Techniques in this general tradition include: factor analysis,[17] a method of determining the
underlying dimensions of data. One of the main challenges faced by users of factor analysis is a lack of
consensus on appropriate procedures for determining the number of latent factors.[18] A usual procedure is
to stop factoring when eigenvalues drop below one because the original sphere shrinks. The lack of the
cutting points concerns other multivariate methods, also.[19]

Multidimensional scaling[20] is a method for finding a simple representation for data with a large number of
latent dimensions. Cluster analysis is an approach to finding objects that are like each other. Factor analysis,
multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis are all multivariate descriptive methods used to distill from
large amounts of data simpler structures.

More recently, structural equation modeling[21] and path analysis represent more sophisticated approaches
to working with large covariance matrices. These methods allow statistically sophisticated models to be
fitted to data and tested to determine if they are adequate fits. Because at a granular level psychometric
research is concerned with the extent and nature of multidimensionality in each of the items of interest, a
relatively new procedure known as bi-factor analysis[22][23][24] can be helpful. Bi-factor analysis can
decompose "an item's systematic variance in terms of, ideally, two sources, a general factor and one source
of additional systematic variance."[25]

Key concepts

Key concepts in classical test theory are reliability and validity. A reliable measure is one that measures a
construct consistently across time, individuals, and situations. A valid measure is one that measures what it
is intended to measure. Reliability is necessary, but not sufficient, for validity.

Both reliability and validity can be assessed statistically. Consistency over repeated measures of the same
test can be assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient, and is often called test-retest reliability.[26]
Similarly, the equivalence of different versions of the same measure can be indexed by a Pearson
correlation, and is called equivalent forms reliability or a similar term.[26]

Internal consistency, which addresses the homogeneity of a single test form, may be assessed by correlating
performance on two halves of a test, which is termed split-half reliability; the value of this Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficient for two half-tests is adjusted with the Spearman–Brown prediction formula
to correspond to the correlation between two full-length tests.[26] Perhaps the most commonly used index
of reliability is Cronbach's α, which is equivalent to the mean of all possible split-half coefficients. Other
approaches include the intra-class correlation, which is the ratio of variance of measurements of a given
target to the variance of all targets.

There are a number of different forms of validity. Criterion-related validity refers to the extent to which a
test or scale predicts a sample of behavior, i.e., the criterion, that is "external to the measuring instrument
itself."[27] That external sample of behavior can be many things including another test; college grade point
average as when the high school SAT is used to predict performance in college; and even behavior that
occurred in the past, for example, when a test of current psychological symptoms is used to predict the
occurrence of past victimization (which would accurately represent postdiction). When the criterion
measure is collected at the same time as the measure being validated the goal is to establish concurrent
validity; when the criterion is collected later the goal is to establish predictive validity. A measure has
construct validity if it is related to measures of other constructs as required by theory. Content validity is a
demonstration that the items of a test do an adequate job of covering the domain being measured. In a
personnel selection example, test content is based on a defined statement or set of statements of knowledge,
skill, ability, or other characteristics obtained from a job analysis.
Item response theory models the relationship between latent traits and responses to test items. Among other
advantages, IRT provides a basis for obtaining an estimate of the location of a test-taker on a given latent
trait as well as the standard error of measurement of that location. For example, a university student's
knowledge of history can be deduced from his or her score on a university test and then be compared
reliably with a high school student's knowledge deduced from a less difficult test. Scores derived by
classical test theory do not have this characteristic, and assessment of actual ability (rather than ability
relative to other test-takers) must be assessed by comparing scores to those of a "norm group" randomly
selected from the population. In fact, all measures derived from classical test theory are dependent on the
sample tested, while, in principle, those derived from item response theory are not.

Standards of quality
The considerations of validity and reliability typically are viewed as essential elements for determining the
quality of any test. However, professional and practitioner associations frequently have placed these
concerns within broader contexts when developing standards and making overall judgments about the
quality of any test as a whole within a given context. A consideration of concern in many applied research
settings is whether or not the metric of a given psychological inventory is meaningful or arbitrary.[28]

Testing standards

In 2014, the American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association
(APA), and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) published a revision of the Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing,[29] which describes standards for test development, evaluation,
and use. The Standards cover essential topics in testing including validity, reliability/errors of measurement,
and fairness in testing. The book also establishes standards related to testing operations including test design
and development, scores, scales, norms, score linking, cut scores, test administration, scoring, reporting,
score interpretation, test documentation, and rights and responsibilities of test takers and test users. Finally,
the Standards cover topics related to testing applications, including psychological testing and assessment,
workplace testing and credentialing, educational testing and assessment, and testing in program evaluation
and public policy.

Evaluation standards

In the field of evaluation, and in particular educational evaluation, the Joint Committee on Standards for
Educational Evaluation[30] has published three sets of standards for evaluations. The Personnel Evaluation
Standards[31] was published in 1988, The Program Evaluation Standards (2nd edition)[32] was published
in 1994, and The Student Evaluation Standards[33] was published in 2003.

Each publication presents and elaborates a set of standards for use in a variety of educational settings. The
standards provide guidelines for designing, implementing, assessing, and improving the identified form of
evaluation.[34] Each of the standards has been placed in one of four fundamental categories to promote
educational evaluations that are proper, useful, feasible, and accurate. In these sets of standards, validity and
reliability considerations are covered under the accuracy topic. For example, the student accuracy standards
help ensure that student evaluations will provide sound, accurate, and credible information about student
learning and performance.

Controversy and criticism

Because psychometrics is based on latent psychological processes measured through correlations, there has
been controversy about some psychometric measures.[35] Critics, including practitioners in the physical
sciences, have argued that such definition and quantification is difficult, and that such measurements are
often misused by laymen, such as with personality tests used in employment procedures. The Standards for
Educational and Psychological Measurement gives the following statement on test validity: "validity refers
to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed
uses of tests".[36] Simply put, a test is not valid unless it is used and interpreted in the way it is intended.[37]

Two types of tools used to measure personality traits are objective tests and projective measures. Examples
of such tests are the: Big Five Inventory (BFI), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2),
Rorschach Inkblot test, Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006,[38] or Eysenck's Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ-R). Some of these tests are helpful because they have adequate reliability and validity,
two factors that make tests consistent and accurate reflections of the underlying construct. The Myers–
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), however, has questionable validity and has been the subject of much
criticism. Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote of the measure: "Most personality psychologists
regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie."[39]

Lee Cronbach noted in American Psychologist (1957) that, "correlational psychology, though fully as old
as experimentation, was slower to mature. It qualifies equally as a discipline, however, because it asks a
distinctive type of question and has technical methods of examining whether the question has been properly
put and the data properly interpreted." He would go on to say, "The correlation method, for its part, can
study what man has not learned to control or can never hope to control  ... A true federation of the
disciplines is required. Kept independent, they can give only wrong answers or no answers at all regarding
certain important problems."[40]

Non-human: animals and machines

Psychometrics addresses human abilities, attitudes, traits, and educational evolution. Notably, the study of
behavior, mental processes, and abilities of non-human animals is usually addressed by comparative
psychology, or with a continuum between non-human animals and the rest of animals by evolutionary
psychology. Nonetheless, there are some advocators for a more gradual transition between the approach
taken for humans and the approach taken for (non-human) animals.[41][42][43][44]

The evaluation of abilities, traits and learning evolution of machines has been mostly unrelated to the case
of humans and non-human animals, with specific approaches in the area of artificial intelligence. A more
integrated approach, under the name of universal psychometrics, has also been proposed.[45]

See also
Psychology portal

Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory
Classical test theory
Computational psychometrics
Concept inventory
Cronbach's alpha
Data mining
Educational assessment
Educational psychology
 Factor analysis
Item response theory
List of international databases on individual student achievement tests
List of psychometric software
List of schools for psychometrics
Operationalisation
Quantitative psychology
Psychometric Society
Rasch model
Scale (social sciences)
School counselor
School psychology
Standardized test

References
1. "Glossary1" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170722194028/http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCM
E/Resource_Center/Glossary/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary1.aspx?hkey=4bb87415-44
dc-4088-9ed9-e8515326a061#anchorP). 22 July 2017. Archived from the original (http://ww
w.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary1.a
spx?hkey=4bb87415-44dc-4088-9ed9-e8515326a061#anchorP) on 2017-07-22. Retrieved
28 June 2022.
2. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Analysis. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
ISBN 978-0-321-05677-1.
3. Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2010). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and
Issues. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
4. Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2010). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and
issues (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
5. Nunnally, J., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Leopold Szondi (1960) Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik.
Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II Las
condiciones estadisticas, p.396. Quotation:

el pensamiento psicologico especifico, en las ultima decadas, fue suprimido y

eliminado casi totalmente, siendo sustituido por un pensamiento estadistico.
Precisamente aqui vemos el cáncer de la testología y testomania de hoy.

7. Stevens, S. S. (7 June 1946). "On the Theory of Scales of Measurement". Science. 103
(2684): 677–680. Bibcode:1946Sci...103..677S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946Sci...
103..677S). doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.103.268
4.677). PMID 17750512 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17750512). S2CID 4667599 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4667599).
8. Michell, Joel (August 1997). "Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in
psychology". British Journal of Psychology. 88 (3): 355–383. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1997.tb02641.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8295.1997.tb02641.x).
 9. Reese, T.W. (1943). The application of the theory of physical measurement to the
measurement of psychological magnitudes, with three experimental examples.
Psychological Monographs, 55, 1–89. doi:10.1037/h0061367 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0
061367)
10. "Psychometrics" (http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/psychometrics.htm).
Assessmentpsychology.com. Retrieved 28 June 2022.
11. Stern, Theodore A.; Fava, Maurizio; Wilens, Timothy E.; Rosenbaum, Jerrold F. (2016).
Massachusetts General Hospital comprehensive clinical psychiatry (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=y5nTBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA74) (Second ed.). London. p. 73. ISBN 978-
0323295079. Retrieved 31 October 2021.
12. Longe, Jacqueline L., ed. (2022). The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology. Vol. 2 (4th ed.).
Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 1000. ISBN 9780028683867.
13. Andrich, D. & Luo, G. (1993). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding
dichotomous single-stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 253–276.
14. Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory: Principles and
Applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
16. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research, expanded edition (1980) with
foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Thompson, B.R. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding
Concepts and Applications. American Psychological Association.
18. Zwick, William R.; Velicer, Wayne F. (1986). "Comparison of five rules for determining the
number of components to retain". Psychological Bulletin. 99 (3): 432–442.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.99.3.432).
19. Singh, Manoj Kumar (2021-09-11). Introduction to Social Psychology (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=wodCEAAAQBAJ&dq=A+usual+procedure+is+to+stop+factoring+when+eige
nvalues+drop+below+one+because+the+original+sphere+shrinks.&pg=PA107). K.K.
Publications.
20. Davison, M.L. (1992). Multidimensional Scaling. Krieger.
21. Kaplan, D. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd ed.
Sage.
22. DeMars, C. E. (2013). A tutorial on interpreting bi-factor model scores. International Journal
of Testing, 13, 354–378. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/15305058.2013.799067
23. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bi-factor modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
47, 667–696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
24. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models:
Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
25. Schonfeld, I.S., Verkuilen, J. & Bianchi, R. (2019). An exploratory structural equation
modeling bi-factor analytic approach to uncovering what burnout, depression, and anxiety
scales measure. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1073–1079.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000721 p. 1075
26. "Home – Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle" (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/Siegle/r
esearch/Instrument+Reliability+and+Validity/Reliability.htm). www.gifted.uconn.edu. 17
February 2015.
27. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. (http://psychology.tamu.ed
u/Faculty/blanton/bj.2006.arbitrary.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/200605101829
15/http://psychology.tamu.edu/Faculty/blanton/bj.2006.arbitrary.pdf) 2006-05-10 at the
Wayback Machine American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41.
29. "The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" (http://www.apa.org/science/stan
dards.html#overview). apa.org.
30. "Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation" (https://web.archive.org/web/200
91015044732/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/). Archived from the original (http://www.wmic
h.edu/evalctr/jc/) on 15 October 2009. Retrieved 28 June 2022.
31. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The Personnel
Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators. (http://www.wmich.
edu/evalctr/jc/PERSTNDS-SUM.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/200512120016
38/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/PERSTNDS-SUM.htm) 2005-12-12 at the Wayback
Machine Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
32. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The Program Evaluation
Standards, 2nd Edition. (http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/PGMSTNDS-SUM.htm) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20060222025348/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/PGMSTNDS
-SUM.htm) 2006-02-22 at the Wayback Machine Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
33. Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). The Student Evaluation
Standards: How to Improve Evaluations of Students. (http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/briefin
g/ses/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20060524144621/http://www.wmich.edu/evalct
r/jc/briefing/ses/) 2006-05-24 at the Wayback Machine Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
34. [E. Cabrera-Nguyen (2010). "Author guidelines for reporting scale development and
validation results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research]" (https://www.a
cademia.edu/2395969). Academia.edu. 1 (2): 99–103.
35. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Analysis. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
ISBN 978-0-321-05677-1.
36. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &
National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999) Standards for educational and
psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
37. Bandalos, Deborah L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1015955756). New York. p. 261. ISBN 978-1-4625-3215-5.
OCLC 1015955756 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1015955756).
38. Aleksandrowicz JW, Klasa K, Sobański JA, Stolarska D (2009). "KON-2006 Neurotic
Personality Questionnaire" (http://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2009_11_1/21_p_Arc
hives_1_09.pdf) (PDF). Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 1: 21–22.
39. Hogan, Robert (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-8058-4142-8. OCLC 65400436 (https://www.worldca
t.org/oclc/65400436).
40. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). "The two disciplines of scientific psychology". American
Psychologist. 12 (11): 671–684. doi:10.1037/h0043943 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh004394
3) – via EBSCO.
41. Humphreys, L.G. (1987). "Psychometrics considerations in the evaluation of intraspecies
differences in intelligence". Behav Brain Sci. 10 (4): 668–669.
doi:10.1017/s0140525x0005514x (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0140525x0005514x).
42. Eysenck, H.J. (1987). "The several meanings of intelligence". Behav Brain Sci. 10 (4): 663.
doi:10.1017/s0140525x00055060 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0140525x00055060).
43. Locurto, C. & Scanlon, C (1987). "Individual differences and spatial learning factor in two
strains of mice". Behav Brain Sci. 112: 344–352.
44. King, James E & Figueredo, Aurelio Jose (1997). "The five-factor model plus dominance in
chimpanzee personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 31 (2): 257–271.
doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2179 (https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fjrpe.1997.2179).
45. J. Hernández-Orallo; D.L. Dowe; M.V. Hernández-Lloreda (2013). "Universal Psychometrics:
Measuring Cognitive Abilities in the Machine Kingdom" (https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/1025
1/50244/3/upsycho.pdf) (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 27: 50–74.
doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.06.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cogsys.2013.06.001).
hdl:10251/50244 (https://hdl.handle.net/10251%2F50244). S2CID 26440282 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:26440282).

Bibliography
Andrich, D. & Luo, G. (1993). "A hyperbolic cosine model for unfolding dichotomous single-
stimulus responses" (http://apm.sagepub.com/content/19/3/269.full.pdf) (PDF). Applied
Psychological Measurement. 17 (3): 253–276. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1003.8107 (https://citeseer
x.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1003.8107). doi:10.1177/014662169301700307
(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014662169301700307). S2CID 120745971 (https://api.semantic
scholar.org/CorpusID:120745971).
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490040 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9780511490040)
Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with
foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Reese, T.W. (1943). The application of the theory of physical measurement to the
measurement of psychological magnitudes, with three experimental examples.
Psychological Monographs, 55, 1–89. doi:10.1037/h0061367 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0
061367)
Stevens, S. S. (1946). "On the theory of scales of measurement". Science. 103 (2684): 677–
80. Bibcode:1946Sci...103..677S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946Sci...103..677S).
doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.103.2684.677).
PMID 17750512 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17750512).
Thurstone, L.L. (1927). "A law of comparative judgement". Psychological Review. 34 (4):
278–286. doi:10.1037/h0070288 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0070288).
Thurstone, L.L. (1929). The Measurement of Psychological Value. In T.V. Smith and W.K.
Wright (Eds.), Essays in Philosophy by Seventeen Doctors of Philosophy of the University of
Chicago. Chicago: Open Court.
Thurstone, L.L. (1959). The Measurement of Values. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
S.F. Blinkhorn (1997). "Past imperfect, future conditional: fifty years of test theory". British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 50 (2): 175–185. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8317.1997.tb01139.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8317.1997.tb01139.x).
Sanford, David (18 November 2017). "Cambridge just told me Big Data doesn't work yet" (htt
ps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cambridge-just-told-me-big-data-doesnt-work-yet-david-sanfor
d/). LinkedIn.

Further reading
Robert F. DeVellis (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=48ACCwAAQBAJ). SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-5063-4158-3.
 Borsboom, Denny (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary
Psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84463-5.
Leslie A. Miller; Robert L. Lovler (2015). Foundations of Psychological Testing: A Practical
Approach (https://books.google.com/books?id=8EYdCAAAQBAJ). SAGE Publications.
ISBN 978-1-4833-6927-3.
Roderick P. McDonald (2013). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=_feqA2RdyOoC). Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-135-67530-1.
Paul Kline (2000). The Handbook of Psychological Testing (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=lm2RxaKaok8C). Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-21158-1.
Rush AJ Jr; First MB; Blacker D (2008). Handbook of Psychiatric Measures (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=ddyZUcaGaRIC). American Psychiatric Publishing. ISBN 978-1-58562-
218-4. OCLC 85885343 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/85885343).
Ann C Silverlake (2016). Comprehending Test Manuals: A Guide and Workbook (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=zl8PDQAAQBAJ). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-97086-0.
Snigdha Rai (2018). "An Ultimate Guide to Psychometric Tests" (https://mettl.com/en/psycho
metric-tests/psychometric-guide/). Mercer Mettl.

External links
APA Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (https://www.apa.org/science/pro
grams/testing/standards)
International Personality Item Pool (http://ipip.ori.org/)
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (https://web.archive.org/web/2009
1015044732/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/)
The Psychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge (http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/)
Psychometric Society and Psychometrika homepage (https://www.psychometricsociety.org/)
London Psychometric Laboratory (http://www.psychometriclab.com/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychometrics&oldid=1154702950"