The logic of psychophysical measurement.

Bergmann, Gustav; Spence, Kenneth W.

doi:10.1037/h0055474

Cited by 87 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The meaning of a scientific concept and is set by the operations (i.e. the measurement procedures) that were used to identify them [ 46 ]. If problematic operationalizations go unnoticed, psychology as a science might get stuck in a process of producing statistically significant results that barely link to their intended construct.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When numbers fail: do researchers agree on operationalization of published research?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current discussions on improving the reproducibility of science often revolve around statistical innovations. However, equally important for improving methodological rigour is a valid operationalization of phenomena. Operationalization is the process of translating theoretical constructs into measurable laboratory quantities. Thus, the validity of operationalization is central for the quality of empirical studies. But do differences in the validity of operationalization affect the way scientists evaluate scientific literature? To investigate this, we manipulated the strength of operationalization of three published studies and sent them to researchers via email. In the first task, researchers were presented with a summary of the Method and Result section from one of the studies and were asked to guess the hypothesis that was investigated via a multiple-choice questionnaire. In a second task, researchers were asked to rate the perceived quality of the study. Our results show that (1) researchers are better at inferring the underlying research question from empirical results if the operationalization is more valid, but (2) the different validity is only to some extent reflected in a judgement of the study's quality. These results combined give partial corroboration to the notion that researchers’ evaluations of research results are not affected by operationalization validity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When numbers fail: do researchers agree on operationalization of published research?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, a numerical assignment procedure alone cannot produce scientific measurement. The meaning of a scientific concept and is set by the operations (i.e., the measurement procedures) that were used to identify them (46). If problematic operationalisations go unnoticed, Psychology as a science might get stuck in a process of producing statistically significant results that barely link to their intended construct.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When numbers fail: Do researchers agree on operationalisation of published research?

Haucke¹,

Hoekstra²,

Ravenzwaaij³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current discussions on improving the reproducibility of science often revolve around statistical innovations. However, equally important for improving methodological rigour is a valid operationalisation of phenomena. Operationalisation is the process of translating theoretical constructs into measurable lab-quantities. Thus, the validity of operationalisation is central for the quality of empirical studies. But do differences in the validity of operationalisation affect the way scientists evaluate scientific literature? To investigate this, we adapted three published studies and manipulated the strength of operationalisation. We preregistered our planned study as a registered report. For each study, we designed two tasks in which the validity of the used operationalisation is manipulated and sent them to researchers via email. In the first task, researchers were presented with a summary of the Method and Result section from one of the studies and were asked to guess the hypothesis that was investigated via a multiple-choice questionnaire. In a second task, researchers were asked to rate the perceived quality of the study. Our results show that (1) researchers are better at inferring the underlying research question from empirical results if the operationalisation is more valid; but (2) the different validity is only to some extent reflected in a different judgment of the quality of the study. These results combined give partial evidence for the notion that researchers’ evaluations of research results are not affected by operationalisation validity.

show abstract

“…5) At any level, the orientation is one of describing an organism in an environment. In consistency with behavioristic analyses (e.g., Bergmann & Spence, 1944) there is an insistence upon the necessity for separate data series to represent the environment on the one hand (e.g., stimulus-type constructs) and the organism on the other (e.g., response-type constructs) in order that the correlation observed between the two shall not be a tautology. In particular, the rat's learned behavior pattern and the maze are to be distinguished.…”

Section: The Relationship Of the Approach To Philosophymentioning

confidence: 98%

Methodological suggestions from a comparative psychology of knowledge processes

Campbell¹

1959

Inquiry

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introductory Abstract. Philosophers of science, in the course of making a sharp distinction between the tasks of the philosopher and those of the scientist, have pointed to the possibility of an empirical science of induction. A comparative psychology of knowledge processes is offered as one aspect of this potential enterprise. From fragments of such a psychology, methodological suggestions are drawn relevant to several chronic problems in the social sciences, including the publication of negative results from novel explorations, the operational diagnosis of dispositions, the status of aggregates of persons as social entities, and the validation of psychological tests.

show abstract

The logic of psychophysical measurement.

Cited by 87 publications

References 11 publications

When numbers fail: do researchers agree on operationalization of published research?

When numbers fail: do researchers agree on operationalization of published research?

When numbers fail: Do researchers agree on operationalisation of published research?

Methodological suggestions from a comparative psychology of knowledge processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About