为什么要把一个方桩钉进一个圆孔里？正在进行的（伪）心理测量问题

IF 1.1 4区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Theory & Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-27 DOI:10.1177/09593543221128522

K. Slaney

{"title":"为什么要把一个方桩钉进一个圆孔里？正在进行的（伪）心理测量问题","authors":"K. Slaney","doi":"10.1177/09593543221128522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary on Borgstede and Eggert’s article “Squaring the Circle: From Latent Variables to Theory-Based Measurement,” (2023) three problematic areas of their proposed psychological measurement framework are identified. These pertain, respectively, to (a) confusions regarding the meaning of “meaning”; (b) vagueness and ambiguity in Borgstede and Eggert’s theory-based measurement framework; and (c) the decidedly thin promise of the aim of replacing ordinary “folk” psychological concepts with theoretically defined formalisms. The commentary concludes with the suggestion that building a psychological measurement framework on the model of the physical sciences may be likely to create more problems than it solves.","PeriodicalId":47640,"journal":{"name":"Theory & Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"138 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why force a square peg into a round hole? The ongoing (pseudo-)problem of psychological measurement\",\"authors\":\"K. Slaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09593543221128522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this commentary on Borgstede and Eggert’s article “Squaring the Circle: From Latent Variables to Theory-Based Measurement,” (2023) three problematic areas of their proposed psychological measurement framework are identified. These pertain, respectively, to (a) confusions regarding the meaning of “meaning”; (b) vagueness and ambiguity in Borgstede and Eggert’s theory-based measurement framework; and (c) the decidedly thin promise of the aim of replacing ordinary “folk” psychological concepts with theoretically defined formalisms. The commentary concludes with the suggestion that building a psychological measurement framework on the model of the physical sciences may be likely to create more problems than it solves.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory & Psychology\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"138 - 144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221128522\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221128522","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

在对Borgstede和Eggert的文章“Squaring the Circle：从潜在变量到基于理论的测量”（2023）的评论中，确定了他们提出的心理测量框架的三个问题领域。这些分别涉及（a）关于“意义”含义的混淆；（b） Borgstede和Eggert基于理论的测量框架中的模糊性和歧义性；以及（c）用理论上定义的形式主义取代普通的“民间”心理概念这一目标的明确承诺。评论最后建议，在物理科学模型上建立一个心理测量框架可能会产生比解决更多的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Why force a square peg into a round hole? The ongoing (pseudo-)problem of psychological measurement

In this commentary on Borgstede and Eggert’s article “Squaring the Circle: From Latent Variables to Theory-Based Measurement,” (2023) three problematic areas of their proposed psychological measurement framework are identified. These pertain, respectively, to (a) confusions regarding the meaning of “meaning”; (b) vagueness and ambiguity in Borgstede and Eggert’s theory-based measurement framework; and (c) the decidedly thin promise of the aim of replacing ordinary “folk” psychological concepts with theoretically defined formalisms. The commentary concludes with the suggestion that building a psychological measurement framework on the model of the physical sciences may be likely to create more problems than it solves.

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

Theory & Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Theory & Psychology is a fully peer reviewed forum for theoretical and meta-theoretical analysis in psychology. It focuses on the emergent themes at the centre of contemporary psychological debate. Its principal aim is to foster theoretical dialogue and innovation within the discipline, serving an integrative role for a wide psychological audience. Theory & Psychology publishes scholarly and expository papers which explore significant theoretical developments within and across such specific sub-areas as: cognitive, social, personality, developmental, clinical, perceptual or biological psychology.