Measurement Of Psychological Attributes Research Articles

Methodological empiricism and the choice of measurement models in social sciences

Realism is generally assumed as the correct position with regards to psychological research and the measurement of psychological attributes in psychometrics. Borsboom et al. (Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219 2003), for instance, argued that the choice of a reflective measurement model necessarily implies a commitment to the existence of psychological constructs as well as a commitment to the belief that empirical testing of measurement models can justify their correspondence with real causal structures. Hood (Erkenntnis, 78(4):739–761 2013) deemphasized Borsboom et al.’s position and argued that the choice of a reflective measurement model does not necessarily require ontological commitments, though, in his view, it does necessitate a commitment to minimal epistemic realism. Although these arguments are formulated with regard to psychological research, they can actually be generalized to other disciplines in social sciences that use similar methodologies and statistical techniques. In Hood’s opinion, empiricism does not suffice to provide an adequate account of the choice of reflective measurement models given that this choice requires an appeal to causal explanations. In this paper, we argue against Hood and answer this challenge, providing epistemic foundations for social science research that do not appeal to realism.

Psychological measurement: Theory, paradoxes, and prototypes

The article focuses on the ongoing debate regarding the measurement of psychological attributes. The aim is to clarify different uses of the term theory and key points of agreement and disagreement among participants. In addition, the article addresses misinterpretations of key points in recent articles and notes an apparent paradox arising in the representational theory of measurement. Substantive theory is contrasted with both item response theory and the representational theory of measurement. Emphasis is placed on the direct dependence of the measurement of physical attributes on substantive quantitative theory as opposed to any form of separate measurement theory. It is concluded that the primary challenge faced in quantitative psychology is to posit testable substantive theories or laws which form a foundation for measurement.

A Comparison of Rubrics and Graded Category Rating Scales with Various Methods Regarding Raters’ Reliability

The measurement of psychological attributes can be performed in two ways. One is to give examinees a number of stimuli (questions) assumed to stimulate the psychological attribute in focus; in this case, examinees respond to predetermined standard response categories depending on the magnitude of the attribute in themselves. This method, called direct self-report, simply covers tests in which examinees choose the correct answer from options available to them. In indirect selfreport, examinees are similarly provided with a stimulus, but they are not offered standard response categories - they can create responses themselves (Erkuc, 2012). Examples of indirect self-report include open-ended questions and performance tasks which aim at measuring skills such as writing, critical thinking and creativity, where responses are structured by examinees themselves.In tests which require examinees to select the correct answer, scoring can be carried out by scoring a correct answer as 1 and an incorrect answer as 0. In other words, there is no degree of correct answers. This is a condition that increases objectivity and reliability in scoring. However, as regards tests in which responses are constructed by examinees themselves, answers close to the correct answer are likely, as well as the correct answer. This situation adversely affects objectivity and reliability in scoring. In order to overcome the adverse effect, graded-category rating scales and rubrics are widely used for the scoring of such tools (Haladyna, 1997; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007; Rezaei & Lovorn, 2010).Graded-Category Rating ScalesGraded-Category Rating Scales (GCRSs) are scoring tools containing the criteria regarding properties intended to be measured in student work along with success levels regarding these criteria. GCRSs offer dimensions for scoring and the range of scoring regarding student work (Haladyna, 1997). In this way, differentiation of the scores assigned by the raters can be prevented to a certain degree. However, since performance levels of success pertaining to the criterion are not defined, success measured as three points by one rater may be measured as two points by another. This situation can be considered as a major weakness of GCRSs. Conversely, their biggest advantage is their ease of preparation and quick scoring (Haladyna, 1997).RubricsRubrics are scoring tools used to define the criteria against which student work is evaluated, and the level to which their performance corresponds (Goodrich, 1996). The most distinctive aspect of rubrics in comparison to GCRSs is that they provide performance definition of each criterion for different levels of success. In other words, rubrics contain separate definitions made for each performance level regarding the criteria. In this context, rubrics have the advantage of giving feedback for students while enhancing objectivity in scoring for teachers. This ultimately contributes to a more standardized and objective determination, not varying from rater to rater.Rubrics can be prepared for a certain scope (task-specific rubric). They can also be developed in order to score general skills such as writing and communication (generic rubric). In addition to these, there are two types of rubrics based on the structure of the tool (Haladyna, 1997). The first of these is the holistic rubric. In holistic rubrics, one single point is given to the student's entire performance and descriptions are available for all performance levels. Such rubrics are used in situations where small mistakes in student performance can be ignored and focus is placed on the whole performance (Arter & McTighe, 2001; Kutlu, Dogan, & Karakaya, 2010). The other type is the analytical rubric. Used more widely, the analytical rubric is a scoring tool that provides information about the achievement levels of student performance in various dimensions. Thus, it can provide a profile of the strengths and weaknesses of students in a certain area (Gronlund, 1998). …

Measurement in psychology: A case ofignoramus et ignorabimus? A rejoinder

The Millean Quantity Objection—that is, the claim that the measurement of psychological attributes is impossible (Trendler, 2009)—has been countered with partly vigorous opposition (Kyngdon, 2013; Markus & Borsboom, 2012; Saint-Mont, 2012). Kyngdon’s response is of particular interest, since he asserts that measurement may already have been established. If correct, it would definitely invalidate any quantity objection and end the century-long discussion about the measurability of psychological attributes. Therefore the focus of the rejoinder will be on the question of when measurement is reached. First the meaning of measurement is elaborated. On this basis, criteria for the successful establishment of measurement are formulated and it is outlined how these are satisfied in the case of intensive quantities. It is concluded that the evidence presented by Kyngdon is insufficient and inadequate. The approach will also serve as background to discuss objections raised against the Millean Quantity Objection.

Mengenal Multi Dimensional Scaling

Measurement of psychological attributes is an important aspect in Psychology. Related with that, the application of measurement tools-including tests scaling become important. So far, Most of psychological scales apply uni-dimensional scaling model which is not sufficient to measure double or even multi-dimension of psychological attributes basically. Therefore, it is necessary to apply multidimensional scaling model in psychological measurement. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is a method to represent distance distinction of similarity or unsimiliarity between objects. MDS interlace with the situations where the stimulus is various with some dimensions simultaneously. Some methods in MDS including: the method of triads, complete methods of triads, the methods of tetrads, the method of multidimension rank-order, the method of multidimensional successive categories and the method of confusion.Keywords: Multidimensional scaling, uni-dimensional scaling

MENGENAL MULTI DIMENSIONAL SCALING

Measurement of psychological attributes is an important aspect in Psychology. Related with that, the application of measurement tools-including tests scaling become important. So far, Most of psychological scales apply uni-dimensional scaling model which is not sufficient to measure double or even multi-dimension of psychological attributes basically. Therefore, it is necessary to apply multidimensional scaling model in psychological measurement. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) is a method to represent distance distinction of similarity or unsimiliarity between objects. MDS interlace with the situations where the stimulus is various with some dimensions simultaneously. Some methods in MDS including: the method of triads, complete methods of triads, the methods of tetrads, the method of multidimension rank-order, the method of multidimensional successive categories and the method of confusion.Keywords: Multidimensional scaling, uni-dimensional scaling