MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981399757 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2011.627086

Is My Test Valid? Guidelines for the Practicing Psychologist for Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Measures

2011· article· en· W1981399757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathleen L. Slaney, Jennifer E. Storey, Jordan Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyChecklistTest (biology)Clinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Set (abstract data type)PsychometricsApplied psychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A general logic for data-based test evaluation based on Slaney and Maraun's (2008) framework is described. On the basis of this framework and other well-known test theoretic results, a set of guidelines is proposed to aid researchers in the assessment of the psychometric properties of the measures they use in their research. The guidelines are organized into eight areas and range from general recommendations, pertaining to understanding different psychometric properties of quantitative measures and at what point in a test evaluation their respective assessments should occur, to clarifications of core psychometric concepts such as factor structure, reliability, coefficient alpha, and dimensionality. Finally, an illustrative example is provided with a data-based test evaluation of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991) as a measure of psychopathic personality disorder in a sample of 384 male offenders serving sentences in a Canadian correctional facility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.511
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.013 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207