Representation in measurement

Vessonen, Elina

doi:10.1007/s13194-021-00365-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting 3 that some (Baccelli 2020; Vessonen 2021) have argued that the RTM should not be understood as a theory of measurement but instead as a theory of measurability. It is, therefore, not a fair criticism to point out that the RTM fails to describe how measurement actually occurs in science.…”

Section: The Correspondence Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Nonexistent: Validity before Measurement

Zhao

2023

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role existence plays in measurement validity. I argue that existing popular theories of measurement and of validity follow a correspondence framework, which starts by assuming that an entity exists in the real world with certain properties that allow it to be measurable. Drawing on literature from the sociology of measurement, I show that the correspondence framework faces several theoretical and practical challenges. I suggested the validity-first framework of measurement, which starts with a practice-based validation process as the basis for a measurement theory, and only posits objective existence when it is scientifically useful to do so.

show abstract

Section: The Correspondence Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Nonexistent: Validity before Measurement

Zhao

2023

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Why summing up bibliometric indicators does not justify a composite indicator

Forthmann,

Doebler,

Mutz

2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various bibliometric indicators have been used to assess the researchers’ impact, but composites of such indicators, namely a metric that combines various individual indicators to describe a complex construct, have received a strong critique thus far. We employ concepts from psychometrics to revisit a composite proposed by Ioannidis et al. (2020) that aimed to represent researcher impact. Based on a selected sample of highly cited researchers, our proof-of-concept study presents a psychometrically principled composite formation. Specifically, by relying on the congeneric measurement model (and related models) rooted in classical test theory, we found that one of the proposed indicators clearly violated the congeneric model’s fundamental assumption of unidimensionality, and two other indicators were excluded for redundancy. The resulting composite based on only three bibliometric indicators was found to display excellent reliability. Importantly, the reliability approached that of the composite based on five indicators, and it was clearly better than the original six-indicator composite. Further, we found rather homogeneous effective weights (i.e., relative contributions of each indicator to composite variance) for simple sum scores, and these weights were close to those calculated using an algorithm for equally effective weights. While the congeneric measurement model also showed strong measurement invariance across sexes, this model’s loadings and intercepts were not measurement invariant across scientific fields and academic age groups. Notably, we found that various derived composites correlate positively with academic age, hinting at a lack of fairness of the composites.

show abstract

The comparison of inequality measurements across countries and time

Basso

2022

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representation in measurement

Cited by 3 publications

References 37 publications

Measuring the Nonexistent: Validity before Measurement

Measuring the Nonexistent: Validity before Measurement

Why summing up bibliometric indicators does not justify a composite indicator

The comparison of inequality measurements across countries and time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About