Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T10:35:09.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Praise of Pluralism. A Comment on Borsboom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael Kane
Michael Kane*
Affiliation:
National Conference of Bar Examiners, Madison, WI
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to mkane@ncbex.org.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I tend to agree with Professor Borsboom that psychology, and more generally the social sciences, could benefit from better psychometric modeling. However, if psychometric developments are to have more effect on everyday practice in psychology, psychometricians probably need to pay more attention to the substantive and methodological problems in various areas of psychology. For example, Professor Borsboom is critical of the Standards for educational and psychological testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) for suggesting that group differences in testcriterion relationships are relevant to test bias. He bases his criticism on the finding that predictive invariance is not the same as measurement invariance. However, he fails to acknowledge the social, political, and ethical problems associated with failures of predictive invariance in high-stakes contexts (e.g., employment and admissions testing).

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 441 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AERA, APA, & NCME (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Benjamin, A. (1955). Operationism, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bridgman, P.W. (1927). The logic of modern physics, Dordrecht: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In Linn, R.E. (Eds.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 147–171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embretson, S.E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach for generating valid tests: Approaches to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 300–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennis, R. (1973). Operational definitions. In Brody, H., Ennis, R., Krimerman, L. (Eds.), Philosophy of educational research (pp. 650–669). Dordrecht: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kane, M. (in press). Validation. In Brennan, R. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R.L. (Eds.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.Google Scholar