On the Philosophical Foundations of Psychological Measurement

Abstract

a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: Available online xxxx Keywords:Educational and psychological measurement Philosophy of measurement Philosophy of science Empiricism Pragmatism Scientific realism a b s t r a c t Measurement has played a central role in the development of the physical sciences and engineering, and is considered by many to be a privileged method for acquiring information about the world. It is thus unsurprising that the psychological sciences have also attempted to develop methods for measurement. However, it is not clear how the ways in which psychological scientists understand measurement accord with how the concept is understood in other scientific disciplines, or by the professional and general publics. In part this may be due to the ways in which several distinct strands of thinking about scientific inquiry (and measurement in particular) have influenced the work of psychological scientists over roughly the past hundred years. Given that such influences are often not studied or even acknowledged, many psychological scientists may be unaware of the resulting tensions in their conceptual vocabulary, and of the gaps between the nature of their claims on psychological measurement and the substantiation for those claims. The aim of this paper is to overview the major philosophical influences on thinking about psychological measurement, and to note the pitfalls of some of the extreme positions that have emerged. We hope that such an overview may help facilitate greater clarity concerning the semantics of measurement claims made by psychological scientists.

Aggressiveness as a latent personality trait of domestic dogs: Testing local independence and measurement invariance

“…Personality traits in animal behaviour are typically defined operationally, based on the statistical repeatability of quantifiable behaviour [ 77 , 85 , 86 ]. As discussed in human personality psychology, operational definitions can be ontologically ambiguous [ 87 , 88 ]. That is, while operational definitions facilitate experimentation in animal personality [ 4 ], they do not necessarily designate biological mechanisms underlying trait expression.…”

Our need for certainty in an uncertain world: the difference between special education and inclusion?

“…As is apparent from the literature cited above, this article is suggesting that the ‘model of uncertainty’ is closely allied to critical pedagogies and a socio‐cultural view of learning and much of the writing associated with inclusive education and twenty‐first‐century skills, while the model of certainty is closely allied to behaviourist and constructivist views of learning and the ideas and processes associated with special education and the ‘traditional grammars’ of schooling. This is not to suggest that there are not a range of different positions within these views and their associated practices, but it does enable us to see why extreme formulations of theoretical positions can be problematic (Maul et al, 2016), as well as the more general positions that people take up and may see as ‘common sense’.…”

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes. 1: The search for the Holy Grail

“…Psychologists may well understand measurement differently from scientists in other disciplines 2 and apply different approaches to scientific inquiry. For example, there are tensions between empiricist, pragmatist and realist approaches in the social sciences.…”