Talk:Psychometrics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Failed Good article review 

message: 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] 
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.
"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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Comments moved into chronological order to clear up the confusion. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychometrics for social phenomena 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  An on-line service of this topic may need to be included 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychometrics and education 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Norming 

message: 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)
replies: text: You could try standardized tests for help. — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychometric Tests 

message: 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)
thread_title: Controversial

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: 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:
:# 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.
:# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern Conceptions of "Reliability" and "Validity" 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Original research tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC in Progress 

message: Substituted at 03:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  undue weight in section: Cambridge/Facebook controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of the brief section on the critiicism of psychometric theory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plagiarism