Abstract
Most of Trendler’s (2019) article, “Conjoint measurement undone,” seems wrong to us. We explain why we disagree completely with two of his assertions: (a) that cardinal measurement scales are absent in psychology and (b) that psychology has stagnated. We share three of his other concerns, but not his perspectives on them or the supposed links among them. These three points are: (a) fewer applications of additive conjoint measurement than initially expected, (b) flaws in the practice of statistics, and (c) need to improve the culture of replication in psychology. We provide our views on these points and also note two distinct strands in the foundational analysis of measurement—one derived from geometry, the other from probability. Trendler completely overlooked the latter.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
