A Review of “Sociocognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement” by Robert Mislevy

  • Anthony Clairmont
  • Andrew MaulEmail author
Book Review

It is senseless to seek in the logical process of mathematical elaboration a psychologically significant precision that was not present in the psychological setting of the problem. (Boring, 1920, p.33).

The last century has witnessed a staggering increase in the scope and complexity of educational measurement and assessment activities, apace with the development of society itself. The same timeframe has also seen substantial developments in the statistical models frequently applied to educational test data. However, it is not always clear whether our collective ability to coherently interpret and responsibly utilize the results of these assessments—referring, as they intend to do, to facts about human beings, in all their situated complexity—has kept up with these developments. Indeed, a number of prominent scholars have raised serious concerns regarding the conceptual foundations of educational and psychosocial measurement, including in this journal (e.g., Borsboom, 2006; also see...



  1. Boring, E. G. (1920). The logic of the normal law of error in mental measurement. American Journal of Psychology, 31, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillian.Google Scholar
  4. Michell, J. (2008). Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 6(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  5. Mislevy, R. J. (2018). Sociocognitive foundations of educational measurement. New York: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Quine, W. V. O. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
  7. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Psychometricians’ beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher, 20(7), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Taylor, C. (2005). The "weak ontology" thesis. Hedgehog Review, 7(2), 35–41.Google Scholar
  9. Wilson, M. (2013). Seeking a balance between the statistical and scientific elements in psychometrics. Psychometrika, 78(2), 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gervirtz Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations