True scores, latent variables, and constructs: A comment on Schmidt and Hunter

被引:52
作者
Borsboom, D [1 ]
Mellenbergh, GJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Fac Social & Behav Sci, Dept Psychol, NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
correction for attenuation; classical test theory; modern test theory;
D O I
10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00082-X
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
This paper comments on an article by Schmidt and Hunter [Intelligence 27 (1999) 183.], who argue that the correction for attenuation should be routinely used in theory testing. It is maintained that Schmidt and Hunter's arguments are based on mistaken assumptions. We discuss our critique of Schmidt and Hunter in terms of two arguments against a routine use of the correction for attenuation within the classical test theory framework: (1) corrected correlations do not, as Schmidt and Hunter claim, provide correlations between constructs, and (2) corrections for measurement error should be made using modem test theory models instead of the classical model. The arguments that Schmidt and Hunter advance in favor of the correction for attenuation can be traced to an implicit identification of true scores with construct scores. First, we show that this identification confounds issues of validity and issues of reliability. Second, it is pointed out that equating true scores with construct scores is logically inconsistent with the classical test theory model itself. Third, it is argued that the classical model is not suited for detecting the dimensionality of test scores, which severely limits the interpretation of the corrected correlation coefficients. It is concluded that most measurement problems in psychology concern issues of validity, and that the correction for attenuation within classical test theory does not help in solving them. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:505 / 514
页数:10
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Birnbaum A., 1968, STAT THEORIES MENTAL, P395
[2]  
BOCK RD, 1972, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V37, P29
[3]  
BRIDGMAN PW, 1927, LOGIC MODERN PHYSICS
[4]  
Heinen T, 1996, LATENT CLASS DISCRET
[5]   STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SETS OF CONGENERIC TESTS [J].
JORESKOG, KG .
PSYCHOMETRIKA, 1971, 36 (02) :109-&
[6]  
Lord F. M., 1968, Statistical theories of mental test scores
[7]   TEST THEORY [J].
LUMSDEN, J .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1976, 27 :251-280
[8]   Measurement precision in test score and item response models [J].
Mellenbergh, GJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1996, 1 (03) :293-299
[9]   GENERALIZED LINEAR ITEM RESPONSE THEORY [J].
MELLENBERGH, GJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1994, 115 (02) :300-307
[10]  
Messick S., 1989, Educational measurement, V3rd, P13, DOI DOI 10.7203/RELIEVE.22.1.8248