Abstract
An analysis of classical test theory and of more recent developments shows that the concepts of true score, parallel test and reliability are poorly defined. Where reliability is defined as generalizability it is not so much poorly defined as detached from the essential interior properties of the test. It is proposed that tests as such be restrictively defined as devices which map an attribute in a single dimension. A logistic model which fits this conception is examined and it is shown that true score, parallel test and reliability can be defined without ambiguity, inconsistency or circularity. Deeper investigation reveals that the true score concept is not only unnecessary as a basis of reliability but also a distraction. Reliability is formulated as a characterization of the test's mapping. It is shown that the mapping can be characterized for the model and it is also shown that there is a distinction between information loss due to regression and error which probably lies behind the poorly conceived notion of true score.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
