Historical Traces of a General Measurement Theory in Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of the historical measurement theory literature in psychology reveals a recurring focus on a physical rather than a psychological model of the measurement process, whereas the active measurement research literature points to an emphasis on elements of a psychological measurement process. On the basis of the relevant portions of these anomalous findings the authors outline parts of a general measurement structure for psychology that begins with an essential theoretical base. The review first explores a century-old statement that developed a promising starting point within test development. This is followed by a diversionary statement based on physical measurement that mandated discussions of measurement in psychology to a physical model. The statement appeared to be countered by the theory of scale types ( Stevens, 1946 ), which provided a promising element of the psychological measurement process. The legacy of the theory of scales, however, resulted in confusion and inconsistency about the specifics of psychological measurement. After reviewing some of the contributions in the research literature, a conciliation of the positive theory efforts of the past and the protocols for a measurement process are presented that is based upon the standard system of measurement ( Aftanas, 1988 , 2006 ) as the basic theoretically necessary element of measurement. The theoretical framework based on the standard system promises not only to integrate the components of measurement, and categories of psychological measurement that have been referenced in the past, but also to provide an easily assimilated protocol that can serve as a basis for future research and pedagogical exposition.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".