总分是心理测量学最大成就的实际意义。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Psychometrika Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1007/s11336-024-09988-z
Daniel McNeish
{"title":"总分是心理测量学最大成就的实际意义。","authors":"Daniel McNeish","doi":"10.1007/s11336-024-09988-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper reflects on some practical implications of the excellent treatment of sum scoring and classical test theory (CTT) by Sijtsma et al. (Psychometrika 89(1):84-117, 2024). I have no major disagreements about the content they present and found it to be an informative clarification of the properties and possible extensions of CTT. In this paper, I focus on whether sum scores-despite their mathematical justification-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies in psychology, education, and adjacent areas. First, I summarize recent reviews of psychometric practice in empirical studies, subsequent calls for greater psychometric transparency and validity, and how sum scores may or may not be positioned to adhere to such calls. Second, I consider limitations of sum scores for prediction, especially in the presence of common features like ordinal or Likert response scales, multidimensional constructs, and moderated or heterogeneous associations. Third, I review previous research outlining potential limitations of using sum scores as outcomes in subsequent analyses where rank ordering is not always sufficient to successfully characterize group differences or change over time. Fourth, I cover potential challenges for providing validity evidence for whether sum scores represent a single construct, particularly if one wishes to maintain minimal CTT assumptions. I conclude with thoughts about whether sum scores-even if mathematically justified-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":54534,"journal":{"name":"Psychometrika","volume":" ","pages":"1148-1169"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practical Implications of Sum Scores Being Psychometrics' Greatest Accomplishment.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel McNeish\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11336-024-09988-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper reflects on some practical implications of the excellent treatment of sum scoring and classical test theory (CTT) by Sijtsma et al. (Psychometrika 89(1):84-117, 2024). I have no major disagreements about the content they present and found it to be an informative clarification of the properties and possible extensions of CTT. In this paper, I focus on whether sum scores-despite their mathematical justification-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies in psychology, education, and adjacent areas. First, I summarize recent reviews of psychometric practice in empirical studies, subsequent calls for greater psychometric transparency and validity, and how sum scores may or may not be positioned to adhere to such calls. Second, I consider limitations of sum scores for prediction, especially in the presence of common features like ordinal or Likert response scales, multidimensional constructs, and moderated or heterogeneous associations. Third, I review previous research outlining potential limitations of using sum scores as outcomes in subsequent analyses where rank ordering is not always sufficient to successfully characterize group differences or change over time. Fourth, I cover potential challenges for providing validity evidence for whether sum scores represent a single construct, particularly if one wishes to maintain minimal CTT assumptions. I conclude with thoughts about whether sum scores-even if mathematically justified-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychometrika\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1148-1169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychometrika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-024-09988-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychometrika","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-024-09988-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对 Sijtsma 等人关于总分法和经典测验理论(CTT)的精彩论述(Psychometrika 89(1):84-117, 2024)的一些实际意义进行了反思。我对他们介绍的内容没有太大异议,并认为他们对 CTT 的特性和可能的扩展进行了翔实的说明。在本文中,我将重点讨论总分--尽管有其数学上的合理性--在心理学、教育学及邻近领域的实证研究中是否能改善心理测量实践。首先,我总结了最近对实证研究中心理测量实践的评论、随后对提高心理测量透明度和有效性的呼吁,以及总和分数是如何或可能无法满足这些呼吁的。其次,我考虑了总分在预测方面的局限性,尤其是在存在一些共同特征的情况下,如序数或李克特反应量表、多维建构以及缓和或异质关联。第三,我回顾了以往的研究,概述了在后续分析中使用总分作为结果的潜在局限性,在这些分析中,等级排序并不总是足以成功描述群体差异或随时间的变化。第四,我将介绍为总分是否代表单一建构提供有效性证据所面临的潜在挑战,尤其是在希望维持最低 CTT 假设的情况下。最后,我将对总分--即使在数学上是合理的--是否能改善实证研究中的心理测量实践进行思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Practical Implications of Sum Scores Being Psychometrics' Greatest Accomplishment.

This paper reflects on some practical implications of the excellent treatment of sum scoring and classical test theory (CTT) by Sijtsma et al. (Psychometrika 89(1):84-117, 2024). I have no major disagreements about the content they present and found it to be an informative clarification of the properties and possible extensions of CTT. In this paper, I focus on whether sum scores-despite their mathematical justification-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies in psychology, education, and adjacent areas. First, I summarize recent reviews of psychometric practice in empirical studies, subsequent calls for greater psychometric transparency and validity, and how sum scores may or may not be positioned to adhere to such calls. Second, I consider limitations of sum scores for prediction, especially in the presence of common features like ordinal or Likert response scales, multidimensional constructs, and moderated or heterogeneous associations. Third, I review previous research outlining potential limitations of using sum scores as outcomes in subsequent analyses where rank ordering is not always sufficient to successfully characterize group differences or change over time. Fourth, I cover potential challenges for providing validity evidence for whether sum scores represent a single construct, particularly if one wishes to maintain minimal CTT assumptions. I conclude with thoughts about whether sum scores-even if mathematically justified-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychometrika
Psychometrika 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Psychometrika is devoted to the advancement of theory and methodology for behavioral data in psychology, education and the social and behavioral sciences generally. Its coverage is offered in two sections: Theory and Methods (T& M), and Application Reviews and Case Studies (ARCS). T&M articles present original research and reviews on the development of quantitative models, statistical methods, and mathematical techniques for evaluating data from psychology, the social and behavioral sciences and related fields. Application Reviews can be integrative, drawing together disparate methodologies for applications, or comparative and evaluative, discussing advantages and disadvantages of one or more methodologies in applications. Case Studies highlight methodology that deepens understanding of substantive phenomena through more informative data analysis, or more elegant data description.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信