项目本体:一种阐明心理测量指标剖析的工具。

IF 5.1
Kai R Larsen, Roland M Mueller, Dario Bonaretti, Diana Fischer-Preßler, James Jim Burleson, Nimisha Singh, Jeffrey Parsons, Jean-Charles Pillet, Lan Sang, Zhu Drew Zhang
{"title":"项目本体:一种阐明心理测量指标剖析的工具。","authors":"Kai R Larsen, Roland M Mueller, Dario Bonaretti, Diana Fischer-Preßler, James Jim Burleson, Nimisha Singh, Jeffrey Parsons, Jean-Charles Pillet, Lan Sang, Zhu Drew Zhang","doi":"10.1287/isre.2023.0257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Survey-based research in information systems requires valid scales to advance theory, and the discipline has developed rigorous procedures to assess scale validity. In principle, these procedures ensure that scales consist of clear indicators and faithfully represent the focal construct. However, the focus on the psychometric properties of scales has overshadowed the role of lexical and semantic elements in the validation process, leading to invalid scales. This overemphasis on psychometric properties will persist unless researchers have a systematic approach to analyzing the properties of indicators and share the outcome of such analyses in formats that can be peer-reviewed, critiqued, or corroborated by other researchers. Thus, the psychometric community needs a shared language and method to uncover the properties of indicators and identify validity problems that psychometric analysis fails to detect. Drawing on ontology development methods, we propose the Indicator Terminology for Explanation and Measurement (ITEM) Ontology, consisting of four high-level hierarchies of entities: objects, measurables, qualifiers, and response sets, each almost always found within an individual indicator. We develop an approach, a codebook, and a website for applying ITEM to psychometric indicators. Common approaches to ontology evaluation are then used to evaluate its expressiveness, utility, importance, accessibility, suitability, and external validity. We find that the ITEM Ontology is highly generative in that it can be used to address several previously unsolvable problems in survey science, polling, and theory testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":92212,"journal":{"name":"Information systems research : ISR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ITEM Ontology: A Tool to Elucidate the Anatomy of Psychometric Indicators.\",\"authors\":\"Kai R Larsen, Roland M Mueller, Dario Bonaretti, Diana Fischer-Preßler, James Jim Burleson, Nimisha Singh, Jeffrey Parsons, Jean-Charles Pillet, Lan Sang, Zhu Drew Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/isre.2023.0257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Survey-based research in information systems requires valid scales to advance theory, and the discipline has developed rigorous procedures to assess scale validity. In principle, these procedures ensure that scales consist of clear indicators and faithfully represent the focal construct. However, the focus on the psychometric properties of scales has overshadowed the role of lexical and semantic elements in the validation process, leading to invalid scales. This overemphasis on psychometric properties will persist unless researchers have a systematic approach to analyzing the properties of indicators and share the outcome of such analyses in formats that can be peer-reviewed, critiqued, or corroborated by other researchers. Thus, the psychometric community needs a shared language and method to uncover the properties of indicators and identify validity problems that psychometric analysis fails to detect. Drawing on ontology development methods, we propose the Indicator Terminology for Explanation and Measurement (ITEM) Ontology, consisting of four high-level hierarchies of entities: objects, measurables, qualifiers, and response sets, each almost always found within an individual indicator. We develop an approach, a codebook, and a website for applying ITEM to psychometric indicators. Common approaches to ontology evaluation are then used to evaluate its expressiveness, utility, importance, accessibility, suitability, and external validity. We find that the ITEM Ontology is highly generative in that it can be used to address several previously unsolvable problems in survey science, polling, and theory testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information systems research : ISR\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490787/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information systems research : ISR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.0257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information systems research : ISR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.0257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于调查的信息系统研究需要有效的量表来推进理论,并且该学科已经制定了严格的程序来评估量表的有效性。原则上,这些程序确保量表包含明确的指标并忠实地代表重点结构。然而,对量表心理测量特性的关注掩盖了词汇和语义元素在验证过程中的作用,导致量表无效。除非研究人员有一个系统的方法来分析指标的属性,并以同行评审、批评或其他研究人员证实的形式分享这些分析的结果,否则这种对心理测量属性的过度强调将会持续下去。因此,心理测量学界需要一种共同的语言和方法来揭示指标的属性,并识别心理测量分析未能发现的效度问题。借鉴本体开发方法,我们提出了用于解释和度量的指标术语(ITEM)本体,它由四个高层次的实体层次组成:对象、可度量、限定符和响应集,每一个都几乎总是在单个指标中找到。我们开发了一种方法,一个代码本和一个网站,用于将ITEM应用于心理测量指标。然后使用本体评估的常用方法来评估其表达性、实用性、重要性、可访问性、适用性和外部有效性。我们发现ITEM本体是高度生成的,因为它可以用来解决调查科学、民意调查和理论测试中以前无法解决的一些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ITEM Ontology: A Tool to Elucidate the Anatomy of Psychometric Indicators.

Survey-based research in information systems requires valid scales to advance theory, and the discipline has developed rigorous procedures to assess scale validity. In principle, these procedures ensure that scales consist of clear indicators and faithfully represent the focal construct. However, the focus on the psychometric properties of scales has overshadowed the role of lexical and semantic elements in the validation process, leading to invalid scales. This overemphasis on psychometric properties will persist unless researchers have a systematic approach to analyzing the properties of indicators and share the outcome of such analyses in formats that can be peer-reviewed, critiqued, or corroborated by other researchers. Thus, the psychometric community needs a shared language and method to uncover the properties of indicators and identify validity problems that psychometric analysis fails to detect. Drawing on ontology development methods, we propose the Indicator Terminology for Explanation and Measurement (ITEM) Ontology, consisting of four high-level hierarchies of entities: objects, measurables, qualifiers, and response sets, each almost always found within an individual indicator. We develop an approach, a codebook, and a website for applying ITEM to psychometric indicators. Common approaches to ontology evaluation are then used to evaluate its expressiveness, utility, importance, accessibility, suitability, and external validity. We find that the ITEM Ontology is highly generative in that it can be used to address several previously unsolvable problems in survey science, polling, and theory testing.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信