Talk:Psychometrics

Failed Good article review

The article focuses solely on individual psychometrics. Social psychometrics need to be addressed. See comments below. Some sections have no inline references or one minor one -- with this level of detail inline references would help. For generality, it would be helpful to discuss the wide range of applications of psychometry, such as in epidemiology, social psychology, public health and in other sociences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vir (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Psychometrics shares the same root as psychology. Psychology is almost entirely concerned with the mental world of the individual, and is differentiated from sociology. Prominent contributors to the field, including Thurstone, Jensen and Rasch, considered their work very much focused on individuals. Even psychometric instruments used in social psychology are normally used to measure individual perceptions, motivations and so forth which are posited to relate to social factors (e.g. perceptions of social expectations, norms, attributions). In the same way, measurement generally has an almost infinite range of applications, but it is not necessary to mention every single one of these in an article on measurement -- indeed it would detract to do so. There is no problem mentioning applications in such fields, including health, but this would not fundamentally alter the article. Anthropometrics is concerned with the physical measurement of indiduals but can (and has) been applied in a range of fields, including epidemiology. Most articles can be broadened, but the limitation you perceive is minor and a red herring. Holon 05:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Psychometrics for social phenomena

Psychometrics are applied to measure social phenomena. This article is narrow in its perpsective. The article needs a revised introduction and a new section on using psychometry to study social factors.

Social networks and quality of life for long-term survivors of leukemia and lymphoma. Lim JW, Zebrack B. Support Care Cancer. 2006 Feb;14(2):185-92. Epub 2005 Jul 9. "This study examined the relationship between personal and medical characteristics and quality of life (QOL) for long-term survivors (LTS) of leukemia and lymphoma, and how social networks influence this relationship." PMID: 16007454 [PubMed - in process] [1]

Note the 1984 date on this -- these types of studies have been around awhile: Social support and social network scales: a psychometric review. Rock DL, Green KE, Wise BK, Rock RD. Res Nurs Health. 1984 Dec;7(4):325-32.[2] "Social support and social network scales were reviewed from a psychometric perspective. A sample of 29 behavioral science studies were selected from social support and social network articles published between 1967 and 1982. Each study was classified according to psychometric issues of scaling, reliability, and validity. The review was motivated by the hypothesis that many social support and social network scales are developed without complete utilization of existing measurement technology." [PubMed]

These reviews and studies including social and social psychological factors might or might not help: The scale of ethnic experience: development and psychometric properties. Malcarne VL, Chavira DA, Fernandez S, Liu PJ. Related Articles, Links J Pers Assess. 2006 Apr;86(2):150-61. PMID: 16599789 [PubMed]

Are employees' ratings of coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior influenced by their own perceptions of organizational justice?'. Ascigil SF, Magner NR, Sonmez Y. Psychol Rep. 2005 Aug;97(1):98-100. PMID: 16279309 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Epidemiological measurement of children's and adolescents' exposure to community violence: working with the current state of the science. Brandt R, Ward CL, Dawes A, Flisher AJ. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2005 Dec;8(4):327-42. Review. PMID: 16362258 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "A number of measures have been used in epidemiological studies of children's exposure to community violence, yet the quality of these instruments is not uniformly good. This paper undertakes a systematic review of the most commonly used (or most promising) self-report or interview-administered instruments, with regard to their conceptual bases and psychometric properties. Based on the review, recommendations are made for working with the current state of the science in order to move the field forward. A key recommendation is for sounder conceptualization of work in the field and greater transparency in the reporting of research, in order to facilitate the comparability of studies."

Trajectories of cognitive decline and social relations. Beland F, Zunzunegui MV, Alvarado B, Otero A, Del Ser T. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005 Nov;60(6):P320-P330. PMID: 16260706 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "We assessed conjoint trajectories of cognitive decline and social relations over 7 years on a representative sample of community-dwelling elderly persons. We analyzed data using repeated measurement models. Social integration, family ties, and engagement with family were associated with cognitive function at advanced ages, controlling for education and introducing depressive symptoms, functional limitations, and chronic conditions as intervening variables. Association of social integration, through participation in community activities, with change in cognitive decline was more significant at advanced ages. Having friends was significantly associated with change in cognitive function in women only. Our findings have important implications for clinical medicine and public health because associations of social relations with cognitive function suggests that they may help to maintain cognitive function in old age."

Cultural values underlying psychometric cognitive testing. Ardila A. Neuropsychol Rev. 2005 Dec;15(4):185-95. PMID: 16395623 [PubMed - in process] It is proposed that culture (values, beliefs, styles of behavior) can affect neuropsychological testing.Cognitive testing represents a social situation that-as any social situation, it is one governed by implicit cultural rules. At least eight different culture-dependent values underlie cognitive testing: (1) One-to-one relationship, (2) Background authority, (3) Best performance, (4)Isolated environment (5) Special type of communication, (6) Speed, (7) Internal or subjective issues, and (8) The use of specific testing elements and strategies. In addition, it is proposed that"the distance" (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) between the examiner and the examinee may potentially impact the testing situation. A special analysis regarding the function of instruction in cognitive tests is also presented emphasizing that test instruction interpretation is also culture-dependent. Some potential avenues of research are finally proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vir (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: Psychometrics are applied to measure social phenomena. Psychometrics is used almost invariably as a singular noun, interchangable with psychometry. Are you using the term as a shorthand to refer to psychometric instruments? See my comments above which cover all of these citations. Holon 06:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The various applications of psychometrics are not of crucial importance in a general article, but nevertheless these fields of application (mainly "clinimetrics" which is the application of psychometrics to medical issues) could be mentioned in a separate section. The reasons, according to me, why this is not a good article, are:

(1) Sentences like "An alternative approach involves the application of unfolding measurement models, the most general being the Hyperbolic Cosine Model (Andrich & Luo, 1993)." Several terms (unfolding measurement model, hyperbolic cosine model) are not explained, and so offer very little help for the reader. (2) The structure is unclear, and some important aspects are omitted. (Reaction times, psychometric models of perception etc).

Applications to "social phenomena" (such as those referred to below) are largely irrelevant. For example, the 1984 article on "social support and social network scales" is just an investigation of psychometric properties of a few self-report scales. This is not of general interest and gives no insight to "psychometrics as applied to social phenomena". Lebatsnok 15:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, inserting comments here is quite confusing. I couldn't even see the new comments without looking at the history. Perhaps you could suggest or make changes. I can't see much use discussing whether it is a "good article". Like most artciles, it has some good and bad aspects. What should the structure be? I tend to agree it's not good, but you must have something in mind if you think it is unclear. Holon 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved into chronological order to clear up the confusion. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Template

Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes explicitly says: Do not use the FailedGA template. Holon 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't resist pointing out the salient irony here. An article on psychometrics is being "graded" using a process that cannot be shown to meet the most basic of psychometric criteria! Dear me. Holon 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Branch of Statistics

It would be nice to have some mention of Psychometrics as a branch/application of Statistics. The field can be approached from Psychology as well as Statistics and Education.

Some contemporary issues of Psychometrics would be a nice addition: brief mention of computer adaptive testing, differential item functioning, etc.

I also see no mention of what universities seem to refer to as Psychometrics: (a type of) quantitative psychology.

--StatsJunkie 04:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some approaches in psychometrics are applications of statistics, but measurement is more fundamental than statistics, in the sense that many statistical techniques require measurement as a starting point. Personally, I wouldn't like to have mention of it in these terms. There's enough confusion about the difference between measurement and statistics as it is.

Holon 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

An on-line service of this topic may need to be included

http://www.brainbench.com/

as this is mentioned by

www.hrmguide.com/recruitment/whole-person-tests.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.34.252 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychometrics and education

I agree with Holon on how psychometrics refers to the measurement of the individual. However, latent mental variables of the individual are not limited to psychological constructs, and this article needs to reflect this. It is currently written from a psychological slant, but, in my opinion, more of the psychometrics that goes on "out there" is in educational and professional settings. For example, state educational achievement tests, work sample tests, licensure and certification examinations. These are achievement tests, and achievement is not a psychological trait because it is more or less acquired - though the acquisition is often dependent on psychological traits. Many, many psychometricians work on these types of tests.

The initial definition should be the measurement of latent mental variables at the individual level - and while psychology is a primary example of this, it is not the only one. Any thoughts? Iulus Ascanius 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, and it is actually the area in which I work, even though I started with studies in psych. So let's make some changes to reflect this. They wouldn't need to be dramatic ones, I wouldn't think. Holon 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Great - I agree that the changes wouldn't be substantial. I'll sit down one of these days... Iulus Ascanius 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Norming

The practice of adjusting the tests so that male and female test takers will get comparable scores in all areas deserves illumination, plus justification for current practices, balanced by pro and con statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.140.24 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychometric Tests

I was looking for an article on Psychometric tests, in particular those used in HR and recruitment. These are now very common and I was interested in the history, theory and and critisism of thier use. It is a difficult subject to search for on the internet as there are a huge number of sites selling these tests, which swamp the results on search engines.

However, "Psychometric Tests" redirects to this page, which is a general discussion on the science of Psychometrics with no readilly apparent discussion on Psychometric Tests as used in employment world (i.e. as opposed to academia). As this is now such a common thing for people to face, and a subject that many dont understand or are cautious about and so therefore likely to want to research. I think it would be very usefull for it to have an article of its own. Or else more clear links from here to the relevent article, if it exsists but is using different terminology.

Sadly, I am completely unqualified to write this, as my only knowledge on the subject is a few tests I've had to do as part of recruitment. Is there anyone who could have a go at this? --ThePaintedOne 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You could try standardized tests for help. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's more a general discussion on a type of test structure, than a discussion on the specific Psychometric Tests that are in common use for recruitment.--ThePaintedOne 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the attention of ThePaintedOne: There is a very good website called Businessballs, which you'll have to google, which includes a very good overview of many of the well-known personality measurement systems. One word of warning, however, that the main Wiki article would do well to discuss, is the fact that (in the UK at any rate) any psychometric instrument that is worth it's salt will have been submitted for review and validation by the British Psychological Society (or BPS). Any instrument that has not been independently scrutinised in this way is quite possibly worth less than the paper it's written on. It is unfortunate that the BPS is a recognised body but not a regulatory body, and the result is that there are many psychometric instruments on the market that are of dubious value, and that are shamelessly sold to unwary employers, recruitment firms and career counsellors. The main article could also usefully include a discussion on falsifiability, i.e. the proneness of the instrument to being used by a candidate to convey a different picture of him/herself to that which is the truth. Certain instruments, for example, include the capability of producing a 'social desirability index' or other 'index of untruth'. The BPS website includes a list of registered tests.Snookerrobot (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance required please

IMHO this article is imbalanced. There is an implicit acceptance of what could be seen as outdated concepts of psychology. There needs to be some contextualising information that points out the fundamental conceptual, subjective and value based concepts upon which the concepts of psychometrics are based.

The article describes psychometrics well IMHO but in its current format this equates to an implicit accepteance of concepts such as IQ. A key phrase in the article is:

 "psychometricians have developed a large body of theory used in the development of mental tests and analysis of data collected from these tests"

Besides the weasel words in this statement, there is no observation anywhere in it pointing out that GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). The article simply equates large datasets, statistical analysis and "truth". It could easily be said that a "large body of theory" is probably available for astrology and I from my limited experience, many astrologists would say that theirs is a developing practice based upon this "large body of theory" and the analysis of the resulting data gathered from astrologists all over the world and throught history.

The fundamental problem in this article is evident in the very word "psychometrics". There is no evidential basis for the existence of such a thing as the "psyche". The word itself stems from the Greek word for "soul". Clearly measuring the "soul" is tricky, but translating the word into modern language and the concept of "mind" is equally problematic. Many if not the overwhelming majority of psychologists steer well clear of this tarpit, preferring to concentrate on behaviour and building theories to explain and help people in their development. The idea of being able to somehow definine the "soul"/"mind", however attractive this may remain, must surely be merely the application of metaphysical concepts which may or may not be helpful. This is the realm of philosophy, not science, no matter how sophisticated the mathematical analyisi may be. The idea of quantifying metaphysical notions, while beguiling and attractive to business, could validly be seen as "scientism".

In to these points it should also be pointed out in the article that there is a very dark history to the field of "psychometrics". Some particularly dark episodes date back to Europe in the 1930's and 40's. The comment of Reese should be read with extreme caution and suspicion. The world of physics and the material, cannot, in any regard whatsoever be considered to be measurable in any way that it might be claimed that metaphysical conceptions might be.

LookingGlass (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As to your issue with the name "psychometrics" because of its Greek roots, I think it's too late to rename a discipline that's 100 years old. We're stuck with it. But we should clarify that here the "psych-" part of the name refers to latent psychoeducational variables. No one in the field would claim they are measuring the soul, so that's just your interpretation of the word.

One thing that I think would help with clarification and balance is to note the differing uses of the word. There are three distinct uses that I am aware of. Originally, it referred to the development of psychological construct structures based on empirical studies rather than just pure conjecture like Freud. Research on the Big Five is an example of that, as is your reference to the 1930s and 40s. There is also the use in the UK where "psychometric" is interchangeable with "pre-employment." There, psychometric tests are pre-employment screening tools. I have a major beef with this because that is obviously only a tiny fraction of plausible psychoeducational variables. Lastly, there is my field of "psychometrics," which is better characterized as applied measurement engineering. Any job title of "psychometrician" likely works in this field, engineering large tests like the ACT, SAT, GRE, licensure/certification tests, and K-12 tests. That is the predominant usage of the word. And that usage cares nothing about the metaphysical, it's about concrete latent variables like mastery of multiplication tables by 3rd graders.

The article definitely needs that clarification. I'll get to it one of these days.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RoFLMAO - you have managed to both slide off the point like a duck on ice and make the point at the same time! To try and clarify. I am not so idiotic as to think that a contemporary of mine would sonceive of themselves as trying to measure the soul. I doubt if there are many of my contemporaries in the West who have anything more than a Walt Disney Fantasia concept for "soul". However that is entirely distinct from not having embedded concepts surrounding the notion pf a "psyche" which nowadays is called "mind". My point regarding the derivation was to try and illuminate the fact that "mind" is a philosophical concept and not a physical measuraable reality. It is an attribution to a physical reality, not a physical reality in itself. To try again with an elementary illustration: the redness of an object is not quantifiable. However IF we define redness as consisting of certain electromagnetic wave frequencies then we can measure the amplitude of these. These are two distict even though powerfully related things. The word "psychoeducational" is even more obfuscatory and suspect. All education concerns the psyche! That is what education concerns. As far as my dictionaries are concerened the word psychoeducational does not exist. It appears to me to be another quasi-scientific term manufactured in an attenpt to dignify muddle headed theory. I apologise if this sounds strong but your reading of my comments here as some sort of primtive attempt to wind some historical clock back to some imagined dark age is to entirely miss the point. The scientism embedded in psychometrics is actually dangerous. As I said, the starkest warnings from history about this are recent and far from imagined. LookingGlass (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response also introduces another problem centring around the conflicts of inerest in "professionalisation". These are proliferating at an alarming rate, fuelled by an academia corrupted now by political engineering. The existence of a professional body (a self interest group wearing the robes of altruism) bears no relation to the legitimacy of its defined sphere of practice. I am also unclear of what empirical studies you refer to but again, there has been a general and dramatic reduction in the application and effectivess of peer-review combined with the application of statistical analysis to fundamentally flawed data sets. While it is true, in a sense, that Freud's views were "conjecture", it is in fact very hard to see clear water between his theories and those of Jung and many many others in this regard. For the reasons I have tried to set out, I think articles in Wiki should be written from a dispassionate and even cynical perspective, setting out the facts together with contextualising information that will allow readers to gain a well grounded understanding of what is involved. At ther moment there is an implicit acceptance of the philosphical basis pof psychometrics that gives rise to a serious imbalance and allows the opportunity for the extremely dark aspects of these matters to gain a foothold. LookingGlass (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You express the view that there is an "implicit acceptance of the philosophical basis of psychometrics that gives rise to a serious imbalance and the opportunity for the extremely dark aspects of these matters to gain a foothold." I expect articles on nuclear physics could be charged with the same! Indeed, I think this could be said of most of science. Certainly, a dispassionate perspective is best, and I'm sure the article could benefit from editing with this in mind. Please focus on particular issues and use prominent verifiable sources. Please connect to Wikipedia NPOV policy.

You say: "The comment of Reese should be read with extreme caution and suspicion. The world of physics and the material, cannot, in any regard whatsoever be considered to be measurable in any way that it might be claimed that metaphysical conceptions might be." Yours is person opinion, what is cited is verifiable in a source that meets all relevant criteria. If you think it needs to be balanced, identify a relevant viewpoint expressed in a verifiable source. Some of the philosophical issues raised are addressed in psychometric literature. It would be useful to consult such literature. Perhaps consider adding a section on clearly relevant philosophical discussion.

You preface your statement with "IMHO this article is imbalanced. There is an implicit acceptance of what could be seen as outdated concepts of psychology. There needs to be some contextualising information that points out the fundamental conceptual, subjective and value based concepts upon which the concepts of psychometrics are based." Clearly, you acknowledge this is your opinion, which is somewhat ironic given what you proceed to say about "subjective and value based concepts" etc. In short, I'm not against making changes with the spirit of your concerns in mind, but you have not adequately developed and articulated your concerns, or used verifiable sources to substantiate them. Let's work on this. I'm removing the tag, simply because, given the reasons stated, I seriously question whether your comments are conducive to improving the article. I stress that I for one, am very much open to suggestions if you can sharpen them and provide a clear verifiable basis for them. Have you looked at Measuring the Mind? I would think that would have some useful material. Cheers Holon (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Holon. All of his points were philosophical if not outright subjective, as you point out. I've been waiting for edits to be made rather than complaints, but have seen none, so the tags are toast.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too late to rename a discipline that's 100 years old. Sorry: its "age" doesn't make it valid. Sorcery is 1000 years old. And Jesus Christ would be 2000. That's all great but it's not science. And Sorry, no we're not stuck with it. this is exact;y what the article lacks: Balance. I am understanding that many psycholgists, but also statitiscians and research operatives condemn psychometrics. An encyclopedia's role is to provide an overall view, not a partial one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.53.23 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 July 2009‎ (UTC)

I never said psychometrics was valid because it was old. I said we couldn't arbitrarily rename it now simply because some random person from outside the field, who doesn't know anything, doesn't like the name.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for edits to be made rather than complaints, but have seen none, so the tags are toast.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide when the tags are toast, especially not after only one month. A POV tag is toast when the page has been balanced. I've re-added the POV tag. If you need sources to help provide balance here's a start:

Pseudoscience and Mental Testing - by Jeffrey Blum

The IQ Myth - by Elaine Mensh

The Mismeasure of Man - by Stephen Gould

The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and the Bell Curve - by Joseph Graves

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience - by Michael Shermer

Normal Science, Pathological Science and Psychometrics - Joel Michell

Fractionating Human Intelligence - by Hampshire, Highfield, and Owen--TDJankins (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

TDJankins is here as a spillover of a dispute on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. There he contends that the larger scientific community regards psychometrics as a pseudoscience. Furthermore he contends that there is such a consensus that WP should just say that it is a pseudoscience, without recognizing any other view. There is currently discussion on the Talk page for that article, as well as a WP dispute resolution page. Roger (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't have any problem with other views being recognized in that summary, but we shouldn't lie or try to confuse the public either.--TDJankins (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh, this article is pretty unbalanced. It really needs a work-over in terms of NPOV. I'll be attempting to include some of the elements mentioned by TDJankins in the coming days and week or so. Just let me know here on the talk page if you disagree with some edits and we can hash it out.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

TDJankins says "I still think that it's pseudoscience as no aspect of the mind is isolatable, therefore no aspect of the mind is measurable, and therefore every instrument is impossible to actually validate. Yet psychometrics claims that it's able to do all of these things all while claiming to be science." [3] Good luck finding sources for those beliefs of his. Roger (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki isn't about winning, so your comment seems kind of strange in context, Roger. I'll only be including content that relies on WP:RSes, but in terms of style and voice, I'll be changing just the /style/ of content.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources to help get this page on track:

Science or Superstition - by David Layzer

The Intelligence Myth - by Henry Schlinger

Pluto's Republic - by Peter Medawar

Measured Lies - 44 authors; edited by Joe Kincheloe, Aaron Gresson, Shirley Steinberg

Inequality by Design - by Claude Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss

The Making of Intelligence - by Ken Richardson

The Fallacy of IQ - 8 authors; edited by Carl Senna --TDJankins (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversial

Dangerous article, how could it be a B grade? Psychometrics validity is controversial. There is little/no controversy exposed here. An Encyclopedia should provide a greater and more representative view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.53.23 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 July 2009‎ (UTC)

Psychometrics is hardly controversial. It is primarily just statistical analysis. What is controversial is the usage of tests, but that has nothing to do with psychometrics, which is why it is in a different article (Psychological_testing). And sign your posts.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism

The article on psychometrics does not review the literature on the criticisms of its theories and methodologies sufficiently. If this is an actual scientific theory, then where is the statement of refutability?

For instance, how can psychometrics claim to be able to accurately predict the future achievement levels of students, when the student’s expectations of self are contaminated by their own intelligence quotient test results? --James Reinert (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. If ever an article needed a CRITICISM section, this one does. 24.4.132.165 (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A Criticism section should likely take up most of this page, but there isn't even one here. I've compiled an initial list of sources that can be used to help get this page on track.

Pseudoscience and Mental Testing - by Jeffrey Blum

The IQ Myth - by Elaine Mensh

The Mismeasure of Man - by Stephen Gould

The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and the Bell Curve - by Joseph Graves

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience - by Michael Shermer

Normal Science, Pathological Science and Psychometrics - by Joel Michell

Fractionating Human Intelligence - by Hampshire, Highfield, and Owen--TDJankins (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of those books. I've also read a great many other books about psychometrics. It should be possible to update the article (which could be brought up to a higher quality rating by Wikipedia's quality scale) by reading a variety of different sources, especially professional sources, about the topic of this article. See my source list mentioned in another section on this article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources:

Science or Superstition - by David Layzer

The Intelligence Myth - by Henry Schlinger

Pluto's Republic - by Peter Medawar

Measured Lies - 44 authors; edited by Joe Kincheloe, Aaron Gresson, Shirley Steinberg

Inequality by Design - by Claude Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss

The Making of Intelligence - by Ken Richardson

The Fallacy of IQ - 8 authors; edited by Carl Senna--TDJankins (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed

Nowhere does this article suggest that the concept is totally snake oil funded by HR and Recruiters. It's simply given a veneer of truth by statistics. There is zero evidence that it's actually measuring what it claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.171.6 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A list of books is not a list of points of criticism, but only a list of books. What are the concise criticisms? Do they line up with current research claims, methods, and analysis, or are they dated? 174.52.240.90 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have any of you dug into the sources to see what could be said about psychometrics as a discipline based on reliable sources? Do any of you have suggestions for new sources that might provide more perspective on the subject? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern Conceptions of "Reliability" and "Validity"

The article treats the concepts of both reliability and validity as intrinsic characteristics of a test or measurement tool. Historically, this is indeed how these concepts were treated. Beginning in 1999, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests, adopted the evolving--and currently generally accepted--view that reliability is a property of scores or of decisions, and that validity reflects the degree of accuracy in the interpretation or actions taken based on scores and other information. This shift was based, at least in part, on the following facts:

1. Reliability estimates, at least in classical test theory, are heavily influenced by the variability of scores in the group being assessed. The greater the variability, the higher the estimates of score reliability generally are, ceteris paribus.
2. Test scores can be interpreted in ways that are accurate for one purpose but not another, which clearly distinguishes the validity of test score use from that of the test itself.

A simplistic example would be using a ruler to measure height. A ruler generally can help us make accurate estimates of height. If everyone, however, was virtually the same height (at least to the point that the ruler was not sufficiently precise to distinguish among them), the reliability of the measurement would be 0.0. The greater the variability in height among the group being measured, the closer we would get to the estimated upper limit on reliability. Reliability, therefore is a function of the measurements in a group, which depends not only on the test but on the makeup of the group.

Let's say, however, that we do get reliable estimates of height. If we use these estimates of height to make inferences about the likelihood that a person will be able to pick fruit without a ladder from a tree with branches of a certain height above the ground, we should be able to predict that reasonably accurately. In this case, our inferences would be relatively valid. However, if we used a person's height to predict their interest in astrology, we will be much less accurate. In this case, even though the measurements are identical, the validity of the use of the measurements is likely to be very different. [Of course, we could make very poor predictions about fruit picking, too; we can only evaluate the validity of our inferences, predictions, and decisions post hoc.] Again, the point is scores have the quality of reliability, not tests, and inferences, predictions, and decisions have the quality of validity, not tests.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to make these changes, but I encourage someone to revise this section.Drbb01 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment "this is a dangerous article" The "dangers" here are already well realised. The term "psychobabble" is quite well known, but the educational level of those exposed to the material given to them by "psychometrist" will in general have no understanding of the arbitrary nature of the conclusions that have been employed in these test, or the mathematics employed in them. From reading the commentary of Dalton on his theorem on organic synthesis quote "I cannot go into the priciple of this" and the complaint of the author of the book it was in, in relation to that ban, in that it holds up our scientific advances, shows that at least in some there is a realisation that the application of these test relies heavily on the credulity of them as being "scientifically" valid while those who administer them have no knowledge of what science is outside of a lay perception of it. People who do would not bother with them. The social structure of England at least, consist of bodies in administrative authority who are in possession of the complete model as it applies to scientific use. The observation that the use of models like those described in the application of "psychometrics" and other fields where there is social consequence can be, and have been socially detrimental has already been made. I have seen the reactions to use of them on other sites. The situation is being watched and people are being warned. Our educational system was set up to deal with it, so that people will do that. That is why we have a percentage of those who are put through our system of academic backgrounding in humanities who are taught to deconstruct and recontruct from a higher academic level, from the common model employed in our systems of measurement. The fact that some one would call these sort of test dangerous and they are of the same academic level as those who concieved these test is testament to that. The governing bodies who oversee and validate these models are also subject to scrutiny, public, and legal. The 1983 and 2005 legal reviews of psychiatric licence where a result of that, but the overall authority where our toleration of psychological, or sociological testing and assessement of us, for what ever reason lies with the majority. I can speak from experience at how frustrating it is trying to warn people about being credulous of test like those. We are all told when we enter the psychological, or sociological arena on a formal basis that what we are reading are only ideas and that these contructs are only models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.149.142 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[4] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How on earth this article is a "medical topic"? It is psychology, not psychiatry. Are going to include chalk article into WEDRS because some sick people eat chalk? MEDRS seems to be flexing muscles, and I will strongly oppose its encroaching into topics other than medicine. Healthy intelligence does not belong to MEDRS. How drugs affect it &mdsh; does. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms and Dispute Resolution

There is a thread in progress at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning the listing of psychometrics in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Any editors wishing to take part in this discussion should comment in the section for statements by other editors. Comments have recently been made in the old section Talk: Psychometrics#Lack of Criticism listing books critical of psychometrics. Please take any comments to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (rather than here) so that they will be centralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Copied from above:

Agreed. A Criticism section should likely take up most of this page, but there isn't even one here. I've compiled an initial list of sources that can be used to help get this page on track.

Pseudoscience and Mental Testing by Jeffrey Blum

The IQ Myth by Elaine Mensh

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Gould

The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and the Bell Curve by Joseph Graves

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer

Normal Science, Pathological Science and Psychometrics Joel Michell

Fractionating Human Intelligence by Hampshire, Highfield, and Owen--TDJankins (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of those books. I've also read a great many other books about psychometrics. It should be possible to update the article (which could be brought up to a higher quality rating by Wikipedia's quality scale) by reading a variety of different sources, especially professional sources, about the topic of this article. See my source list mentioned in another section on this article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research tag

I started adding {cn} tags, but soon stopped. The article has big swaths of unreferenced opinions. THe most critical one is (almost unreferenced) "History section." One need references which directly say that this-or-that thing from past was precursor of p-metrics. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH regardless the text is plausible or not. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition "Key concepts" speak of "Key concepts in classical test theory are reliability and validity". With the exception of "test bias" paragraph, the section says nothing about relation of these "key concepts" to p-metric. As such, it is pure WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK. Just as well I can add a huge swath from the biography of Alfred Binet, but in fact adding nothing to the understanding of the article subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the very definition of the subject is unreferenced. And I find rather dubious why would testing of educational achievement be a matter of "psychological measurement".

Concluding: unless you provide references that explicitly link the article text for the term "psychometric" I will insist that this article is one big sloopy personal essay. In the future please do not remove tags from article without discussion and/or fixing the issues raised. As a wikipedian-in-residence you should have known better. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the tags, unless there are more specific criticisms. Roger (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

These criticisms are quite specific. The article is an unreferenced essay. I find some statements dubious. Do you want me to start deleting unreferenced staements per wikipedia policy (Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed) or you want to work on article improvement without unnecessary impediment? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources at hand about the article topic, psychometrics? I was just at a major university library a few hours ago today gathering new sources on this topic to go with the dozens of sources I already have in my office. Following up on what I just posted to your user talk page, @Staszek Lem:, I think the better identification of what is wrong with this article, today, is that it doesn't cite enough of the better published sources about the article topic. That problem can be fixed more rapidly by identifying that specifically as the problem with the article. I invite other editors to look on at the last few edits to the article, referring to reliable secondary sources on the article topic as they do, and encourage them to review which article tag is more informative to our fellow Wikipedians about what needs to be done to fix the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(moved from my user talk page):

Thanks for your edit summary reverting my revert of your edit on Psychometrics. I see here you don't have a strong opinion on the particular subject of that article, but I thought I'd double-check on whether or not you have any sources at hand about psychometrics. (I have literally more than twenty sources about that topic in my office next to me as I type this.) I respect the basis of your opinion about whether the article needs more citations to reliable secondary sources, as it plainly needs more inline citations, but as I read the article, as a person familiar with many high-quality sources on the topic, I can assure that the article text, as it reads this week, does not look an article produced by what original research but rather an article that has been lax in citing reliable published research by mainstream scholars on the topic. So I agree with you in thinking the article has a problem, but simply think it will be more helpful to other editors who can fix the article to identify the problem more exactly. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@WeijiBaikeBianji: And I can assure you that the article looks like a collection of factoids not necessarily associated with the subject and the subject definition looks like something made-up without much thinking. I don't doubt that various historical facts described taken one by one are correct, but this is exactly the problem of WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC in Progress

A Request for Comments is in progress at Talk: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, concerning whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in that list; (2) included in that list, but with a notation that it is considered pseudoscience by a minority of scholars; (3) excluded from the list. Participation in the RFC is welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Psychometrics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Former GA sven_nestle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.215 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead

The first three sentences read, "Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. As defined by National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), psychometrics refers to psychological measurement. Generally, it refers to the field in psychology and education that is devoted to testing, measurement, assessment, and related activities." It's as though the article starts, stops short, goes back to the beginning, starts again, gets a little farther than it did the first time only insofar as it mentions NCME, and then goes back to the beginning again and finally runs all the way through. By the time it's over, it's told us three times that psychology and measurement are involved. Surely this can be tightened up a little. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

undue weight in section: Cambridge/Facebook controversy

I'm nonplussed about the addition of this information rather than putting it in articles about Cambridge Analytica or Facebook or related articles. This should be axed. - Scarpy (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the brief section on the critiicism of psychometric theory

Of course there can be problems with psychometric theory. But the criticisms have to be cogent.

Problems with the paragraph of criticism that I deleted include the following. (1) Research on test validity is multi-faceted; this criticism amounts to a vague generalization about statistics. (2) The many teachers I know don't fit grades into a bell curve as asserted by the editor. (3) The writer claims that differences between brains "may" be "discontinuous" but does not explain what he or she means. (4) There is an unclear statement about job performance and crime.

(1) If you are referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychometrics&diff=1011151452&oldid=997838825 the criticism is appliceable to the practice of assuming that statistical validity is what validates tests "on a population level" which psychologists do with all tests they approve for general use. In that context, it matters less if they mention some other types of validity as notes with little effect on whether or not the tests are generally used.

Validity is multifaceted. It includes content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. New methods to understand test and scale validity include item-response theory, Mokken analysis, and exploratory structural equation modeling bifactor analysis. You cannot make a general statement that lumps all these together. Iss246 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(2) While individual teachers in the past did bell curve grades on a class basis, that specific practice was changed to avoid students in the same class undercutting each other's studies and not because the educational system admitted that the bell curve approach was flawed. On a central (e.g. state) level, the educational system keeps updating criteria for grades to fit the results into bell curves and therefore not eliminating the problem that is criticized.

You cite no evidence that schoolteachers used a normal curve to grade students currently or in the past. How many teachers, past and present, are aware of the normal curve? Iss246 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(3) The edit may have been a bit of a short summary, it can be added that "discontinuous" in context means that the actual differences between brains may be large ones caused by single causes but that bell curving of tests conceal this by eliminating tests that discover the true differences. In other words, creating spurious tests for false constructs that give an appearance of many causes with small effects to fit a bell curve.

What is the evidence for the discontinuity you assert to be present? You can't just make a claim without evidence. Iss246 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(4) The statement refers to the fact that employers often admit or dismiss applicants because of their school grades and that offender profilers often include school grades in the profiles used to suspect and catch alleged criminals and influencing the probability of investigations getting enough resources to find evidence of crime. This means that neither job performance nor the crime that gets recorded are independent factors capable of validating an underlying cause in the mind shared in common with the causes of school results.2A02:AA1:1021:84CD:1C28:F9B6:2EDE:B4F2 (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

I thought I would correct information on this entry, but there is so much misinformation it just seems like too much to do. There is a lot of bias citing false ideas about psychometrics. I cannot. I just wanted to point that out. sigh. --- Bataromatic (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

So are you going to list examples of what's wrong or...? Talk pages are for improving the article, not venting.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bataromatic your revision was out of order - you should have brought the discussion here to the talk page per WP:BRD. Jargon such as the following is not appropriate for the level of reading necessary on Wikipedia. I myself am a content expert, and am guilty of this on many articles. It is not a situation where "oh okay, it exists in one place, so it should it exist in every place." Those other articles should also be rewritten if they use language like this: (emphasis mine)

The widespread definition in psychometrics, proposed by psychologist Stanley Smith Stevens (1946), is that measurement is "the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to some rule." Stevens defined measurement in this manner in the same paper that he proposed the four levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio.[7][8] This convention differs from the 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.

The language is impenetrable. I have to reread it three times to get what's going on, and I have a PhD in a scientific discipline. That may be appropriate for a scientific paper, it is not appropriate here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In particular, you appear to have taken some information from levels of measurement. These sentences are fine in that article, which is a more technical article to begin with. It has more space to explain what things are, what terms mean. But when we get to more general articles about entire fields, the content should be less jargon-heavy, less technical, and more generic. This is the essence of WP:DUE-compliant writing as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if you guys want to have an entry that is riddled with incorrect info, then you got it, I will cease editing this. I don't wish to get into petty arguments or bust out my credentials to others on an anonymous forum.

In addition, much of this entry is plagiarized. And no, I am not the one who plagiarized. Adieu. --- Bataromatic (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hello, I attempted to correct this article in several ways due to much of the misinformation as well as large swaths plagiarism I found throughout the article. Unfortunately there are editors who seem to have issues with that. Additionally the validity argument is a contraversy within the practice, and it is not "original research," This is discussed in the book I gave as a reference. I feel like perhaps pages like this should be edited by those who understand the practice.

Thanks, leaving Wikipedia for a long time now! -- Bataromatic (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an airport, you don't need to announce your departure. I have removed the component that is original research, the "Perhaps in response to X." Unless the source says it is in response to X, we cannot say this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Psychometrics is concerned with the objective measurement of latent constructs that cannot be directly observed."

Also non-latent ("fluid"), also directly observable. As phrased, this sentence misleads. 146.200.7.166 (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)