Rejoinder to Clemans

Abstract

This rejoinder responds to the major statements and claims made in Clemans (this issue). The arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions made by the Thurstone procedure are described. We point out the logical inconsistency of Clemans's claim that the relationship between raw scores, and abilities holds when transforming abilities into raw scores but not when transforming raw scores into abilities. Two effects that Clemans claims are caused by item response theory (IRT) scaling are examined, and we demonstrate that they occur more often with Thurstone scaling than with IRT scaling. We reiterate our belief in the superiority of IRT scaling over Thurstone scaling.